Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) (No. 2) BILL

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME BURGESSES' LANDS BILL [Lords]

UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Nationalised Industries (Investment Programmes)

Mr. Alison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that announcements by nationalised industries of fundamental changes in investment policies and proposals, involving large sums of public money are preceded or rapidly followed by statements to Parliament by the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give instructions that all announcements of major changes in investment plans of nationalised industries should be made in the first instance to Parliament.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will in future arrange that statements announcing major revisions in the investment plans of the nationalised industries should be made to Parliament.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): Programmes for one year ahead are published in the annual White Paper on Loans from the Consolidated Fund, and major developments in

policy are announced by the responsible Ministers. Since it is not the practice to announce long-term investment programmes, the question of announcing revisions does not arise.

Mr. Alison: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, on 16th February, he gave some firm figures about capital expenditure by the electricity industry? How is it that a few weeks later the electricity authority can announce a cut of £50 million in the electricity investment programme without anything being said to this House, except allegations by the Chancellor in his Budget speech that economic services are going to he expanded?

Mr. Callaghan: The answer is that I gave the programme for one year ahead and this is a long-term revision which has taken place. It extends into the early years of the 1970s.

Mr. Jenkin: Why were these three Questions transferred by the Prime Minister to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why does not the Prime Minister answer them himself, as it is clearly a matter affecting every Department responsible for nationalised industries?

Mr. Callaghan: I am not sure whether that is a question for me, but perhaps he thought that I would be better at answering it—in which case the hon. Gentleman and his supporters should have no complaints. The Treasury takes responsibility for the nationalised industries' programmes. Although the hon. Gentleman may want to be shot down regularly by the Prime Minister, there is no reason why we should assist him in his attempts at suicide.

Tidal Land (Sale)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria govern the fixing of prices by the Crown Estate Commissions when tidal land which is otherwise undeveloped and valueless is sold to local authorities and other bodies which need it for development made possible by reclamation schemes undertaken by them at their own expense.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): The Commissioners follow the advice of the Inland Revenue Valuation Office as to


the market value, excluding any element of monopoly value.

Mr. Lloyd: Since the Chancellor said only yesterday that he intends to help local authorities wherever possible, and since his colleague, the Minister of Transport, has also said that it is her intention to help port authorities, is this not a singularly unhelpful way of going about it?

Mr. MacDermot: I am afraid that we cannot help local authorities by breaking the law. The Crown Estate Act requires the Commissioners not to sell or dispose of land except for the best consideration which can reasonably be obtained. An assurance was given to the House when the Bill went through that they would follow this procedure by seeking the advice of the Inland Revenue Valuation Office and accepting it.

Poster (Tax Expenditure)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the poster exhibited last year in post offices, inland revenue and other Government offices explaining the way in which the taxpayer's money is spent.

Mr. MacDermot: The exceptional lateness of the 1966 Budget prevented the timely exhibition of the poster last year. The series is being resumed this year.

Mr. Irvine: Why did the Chief Secretary tell me on 31st January that such posters were already displayed in my constituency and the Postmaster-General tell me on 10th March that no such posters were exhibited?

Mr. MacDerrnot: I do not think that the Chief Secretary was referring exclusively to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. His Answer referred to the normal practice.

Members (Car Allowances)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now move to revise the mileage allowance rate paid to Members of Parliament using their private cars on parliamentary business.

Mr. MacDermot: If the hon. Member thinks that the time has come when such a revision would be justified, it is open

to him to seek the support of the Services Committee.

Mr. Lloyd: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that promising Reply. As the option to use public transport is largely theoretical, would he not consider that an early revision in conformity with the actual costs of running a vehicle is long overdue?

Mr. MacDermot: My Answer was intended to be non-committal, and I would rather keep it that way.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what figures are available for public expenditure in 1966 on military defence, research, housing and environmental services, and social services; what were the corresponding figures for 1960 and 1963; and what estimates he will give of the Government's intended expenditure in these fields in 1967, 1968, 1970, and 1972.

Mr. Callaghan: Public expenditure on military defence in 1966 was £2,219 million; outturn figures for 1966 for the other services will be pubished in the National Income Blue Book later in the year. I will circulate figures for 1960, 1963 and 1965 in the OFFICIAL REPORT and on future years I would refer my hon. Friend to the exercise on public expenditure programmes which I mentioned in my Budget Speech. [Vol. 744, Col. 990.]

Mr. Roberts: Would not the Chancellor agree that our great national problem is not a shortage of resources but the task of redeploying them from useless military production to help education, housing and social welfare; service to the community generally?

Mr. Callaghan: If my hon. Friend had asked me for details for various financial years, I could have given him the percentages. They would have shown that, taking the financial year 1962–63 as against 1965–66, military defence expenditure increased by 17 per cent., housing and environmental services by 41 per cent. and social services by 37 per cent. It therefore looks as though the redeployment we want is taking place.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Concerning future expenditure, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is one of the duties,


perhaps the first duty, of the Treasury to keep a continuing review of these matters? Would the right hon. Gentleman say in what respect the review he forecast in his Budget differs from what goes on anyway?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. This special review is taking place in order to prepare for the Estimates for next year in the light of my attempts—and I hope that they will be successful—to try to regulate the economy and to make room for growth in private investment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that His Holiness the Pope has recently described the arms race as an "intolerable scandal" and has urged all Governments to reduce expediture so that some of it might be diverted to curing world poverty? How far does the Chancellor agree with that?

Mr. Callaghan: Not only do I respectfully agree with it, but I am glad to say that we are one of the nations carrying it out.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Would the right hon. Gentleman stop the practice of giving figures of Government expenditure in terms of constant prices on a 1964 base, which tends to disguise the fact that Government expediture is rocketing out of control?

Mr. Callaghan: Although that is a different question, the answer is "No, certainly not".

Following are the figures:


PUBLIC EXPENDITURE*



£ million



1960
1963
1965


Military Defence
1,630
1,892
2,095


Research
97
130
154


Housing and Environmental Services
827
1,056
1,490


Social Services
3,409
4,491
5,479


* Source: National Income and Expenditure Blue Book: 1966 Table 53.

National Income (Wages and Salaries)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the national income in 1966 went to rent, interest and profit; what proportion went to wages and salaries; what were the corresponding figures for 1960 and 1963; and what steps he is taking to orientate national income to wage and salary earners.

Mr. Callaghan: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the last part of the Question, the Government's economic policy is designed to ensure fairness in the distribution of incomes between the various groups.

Mr. Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that it is time to speed up redistribution and that we should try to replace the crude and outdated instrument of Income Tax by a system of direct taxation, coupled with higher Surtax and higher death duties—[Interruption.]—allied to considerably increased social welfare benefits, not forgetting the claims in this direction of the lowly paid workers?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not have Budget speeches at Question time.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend has raised a number of interesting topics, but I doubt whether I could encompass a reply within terms which would meet with your approbation, Mr. Speaker.

Sir S. McAdden: Without seeking to introduce a sense of nostalgia to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), is it not a fact that rent, interest and profits have always been decried by hon. Gentlemen opposite? While the Government are doing everything possible to abolish profits, when will they do something about rent and interest?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the supplementary was directed at me. The proportion of the total gross domestic income devoted to profits and incomes, including rent, declined from 33·4 per cent. in 1960 to 30·5 per cent. in 1966.

Mr. Shinwell: Not enough.

Mr. Callaghan: Income from employment increased from 66–6 per cent. to 69·5 per cent.

Mr. Biffen: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the objective of the Government's prices and incomes policy, in which the C.B.I. has been asked voluntarily to co-operate, that the share taken by wages and


salaries shall go up while that taken by dividends shall fall?

Mr. Callaghan: That is not related to the Question I am answering and should be addressed to the First Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The answer, from the point of view of a mixed economy, is that which I gave clearly in my Budget speech, and I do not think that I could improve on the language I used there.

Following are the figures:


PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GROSS DOMESTIC INCOMES



Profit incomes, including rent
Income from employment


1960
33·4
66·6


1963
32·0
68·0


1966
30·5
69·5

The Mint

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet reached a decision on the siting of the new Mint which will produce the 9,000 million coins required for change to decimal currency four years hence; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Callaghan: I cannot at present add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) on 7th March. [Vol. 742, c. 235.]

Sir G. Nabarro: When is the Chancellor expecting to make a decision on this matter of massive industrial importance? Would not he agree that it is desirable, first, that new plant should go to the development areas and, secondly, that it should not be fragmented, making the same mistakes that were formerly made with the fragmenting of the large new strip mill, part in Scotland and part in South Wales?

Mr. Callaghan: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's view. As to the period of time, I think that I will be able to stand by the Answer I gave on 7th March, when I said that I hoped to make a statement within two months.

Mr. E. Rowlands: Would the Chancellor give an assurance that if the Mint is moved from London the development areas will be given priority, especially in

view of the high unemployment rate in South Wales? Will he bear these matters in mind when considering moves of this sort, particularly the unemployment problems of this and similar areas?

Mr. Callaghan: I believe that it would be better for me to make a comprehensive statement at the time when a decision about the future of the Mint is taken.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider a site in Ulster?

Mr. Campbell: While it is desirable, where practicable, for establishments to be moved from London to the regions, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that considerably fewer coins would be required if the 10s. system were adopted instead of the Government's present proposal?

Civil Servants

Sir J Langford-Holt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how many he expects the number of nonindustrial civil servants will increase by the end of 1967; and how this will compare numerically and as a percentage with December, 1964.

Mr. MacDermot: The Estimates for 1967–68 provide for an increase of about 7,500. By the end of March 1968 the total increase since December 1964 will be about 4,600 or 11 per cent.—all these figures excluding the Post Office.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that it is highly desirable that this percentage is watched extremely carefully? Can he say what level in his view is an acceptable level, in view of the fact that it appears to be getting excessively high?

Mr. MacDermot: I agree that it must be closely watched, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is done. The question of the level must depend on the policies and decisions of the Government. If the hon. Gentleman finds these figures surprising, I would remind him that in the last four years of Conservative Administration the number of nonindustrial civil servants went up by 33,500.

Mr. Macleod: In giving the main Answer the Financial Secretary gave the figure of 4,600. Did not he mean to say 46,000?

Mr. MacDermot: I am sorry. It was indeed a slip of the tongue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I intended to say 46,000 and thought that I had done so. That is the figure which should be compared with the figure of 33,500.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend say how many of these people are being used to watch, for example, Bristol Siddeley?

Mr. MacDermot: Not without notice.

Inland Revenue Stencil No. 85

Mr. Biffen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will withdraw Inland Revenue Stencil No. 85 issued by Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes, London Provincial 2 District, requesting details of taxpayers' assets; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Inland Revenue Stencil No. 85 was used by Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes, London Provincial 2 District, since no statutory authority existed for the information sought; and what action has been taken to prevent a re-occurrence of such incidents.

Mr. MacDermot: The stencil in question was withdrawn from use at the beginning of January.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the Government's unhappy tendency to require the public to regard White Papers as though they had the force of law, will not the hon. and learned Gentleman take this occasion to regret that this stencil, requiring submission by taxpayers for which there was no statutory obligation whatever, was ever issued by the Treasury?

Mr. MacDermot: I take this occasion to thank those hon. Members who have drawn my attention to this point. When the matter was last raised at Question Time I said that I would look at it to see whether any further instruction was required. I have done that, and was so satisfied. A circular has been issued to all tax officers making it clear that they should not give the impression that any

statutory authority exists for demanding these lists.

Mr. Nott: Surely there is some cause for regret, and should someone not be reprimanded in this case, where taxpayers have been asked to list their private possessions without statutory authority? Will the Financial Secretary express his regret in this respect?

Mr. MacDermot: There is no occasion for any apology. Many taxpayers and their advisers will think it a useful practice and will continue to supply the information. Certainly I have every intention of doing so myself.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Financial Secretary clarify one of his answers. I understood him to say that he had asked inspectors not to give the impression that any statutory authority exists for the question. Is the question still being asked?

Mr. MacDermot: Only in those cases where there is reason to think that such a list has been prepared—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is perfectly common practice for accountants to prepare lists of this kind, and very often it is to the mutual convenience of both the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue for the Revenue to have a copy of that list. In those cases, there is nothing improper in asking for it, and inspectors will be authorised to do so. What is being made clear is that there is no suggestion that there is any legal requirement to supply it.

Mr. Barnett: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, in practice, this sort of thing has gone on for a very long time, to the mutual convenience of taxpayers and the professional men dealing with their affairs?

Mr. MacDermot: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Of course, that is right.

Higher Income Groups (Salaries)

Mr. John Lee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many rises have occurred in incomes exceeding £10,000 and between £5,000 and £10,000; how many new occupations have been created with salaries in these two categories since Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966 became operative; and how many rises have been prohibited under the provisions of that Act in respect of such categories.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases have occurred in earned incomes exceeding £5,000; how many new appointments have been created in these categories; and how many increases have been prohibited since Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966, became operative.

Mr. MacDermot: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Lee: Should it not be available? Is it not rather unsatisfactory, and how does my hon. and learned Friend expect us to have a fair incomes policy if we do not know what incomes there are in existence?

Mr. MacDermot: What we are concerned with is the collection of information of this kind as a result of analysing Income Tax returns. I am afraid that to try to extract this kind of information from tax returns would call for a quite disproportionate effort.

Mr. Cronin: Would the Financial Secretary not agree that, apart from the high income groups to which my hon. Friend referred, there has been extensive evasion of the wage freeze by employers and higher-paid workers on specious grounds of promotion or increased responsibility, very much to the detriment of lower-paid workers who are in well-defined categories and cannot get increases?

Mr. MacDermot: I am not aware of such evidence, and I believe that surveys which have been carried out by management consultants indicate that, in the salary sphere, the standstill and severe restraint policy has been fully respected. I think that this has been mainly concerned with salaries between £2,500 and £5,000 a year, but I have no reason to think that the same does not apply to salaries in a higher range than that.

Sir C. Osborne: Have back bench hon. Members who have been promoted to Ministerial positions objected to increases in salary?

Mr. Michael Foot: Is it not the case that under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget proposals relief is given to certain Surtax payers, as compared with the previous situation, which will cost the Exchequer a considerable sum of money? How do the Government

justify that when they refuse reliefs to members of the population who are in difficult circumstances?

Mr. MacDermot: My hon. Friend is mistaken. There is no relief granted. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed that a one-year surcharge would he a one-year surcharge.

Privately-Owned Real Property

Mr. John Lee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue a White Paper giving statistics from information available to him from tax returns and other sources of the distribution of privately-owned real property in the United Kingdom.

Mr. MacDermot: The available information is already published in the Annual Reports of the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Lee: Will my hon. and learned Friend arrange for this information to be more conspicuously displayed, because the gross inequality of wealth is one of the many things which hon. Members on this side of the House hope that the Government will put right?

Mr. MacDermot: I regret that there is not a great deal of information of the kind that my hon. Friend seeks. If it will assist him, such information as there is will be found in Tables 165 and 167 of the 109th Report.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the information which has been prepared or is likely to be prepared from this kind of source is bound to be distorted by the absence of information on industrial pension funds and other investments on behalf of wage earners?

Mr. MacDermot: As we are dealing with privately-owned real property, I hardly think so.

Ford Motor Company Limited (Dividend)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations were made to him about the decision of the Ford Motor Company Limited to pay an increased dividend to its parent company out of reduced profits; and what answer he gave.

Mr. MacDermot: The dividend referred to was not subject to the standstill. It was declared and paid in April, 1966.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House whether such a dividend increase would have been approved if it had been paid by the company to United Kingdom shareholders?

Mr. MacDermot: The question does not arise. It is purely hypothetical, because this was outside the period of the standstill.

British Troops, Germany (Foreign Exchange Costs)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to agree to the foreign exchange cost of British troops in Germany after the expiry of the current Anglo-German offered agreement being offset in whole or in part by a German commitment to hold medium- or long-dated United Kingdom Government securities in its reserves; and if he will define medium- or long-term borrowing for this purpose.

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. The second part of the Question does not arise.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm that his recent statement that, in one way or another, the foreign exchange costs of British troops in Germany would be met in full was after all an idle bluff? Can he tell us, further, whether the Government still believe that the offset costs of American troops in the United Kingdom should not be included in this calculation?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is pleased or disappointed that we have recovered £72 million out of the £82 million. I suspect that it is larger than he thought and that that is the reason for his disappointment. As to the other parts of his supplementary question, the United States, Germany and ourselves have agreed to make statements on the same day. Therefore, I should prefer not to be drawn into details at the moment.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what savings in expenditure in foreign exchange are to be

secured by the withdrawal of British troops from West Germany in the near future; how the balance is to be covered; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Callaghan: I would refer my hon. Friend to my statement in my Budget Speech. As I explained then, I cannot give further details till the negotiations are complete.—[Vol. 744, c. 981.]

Mr. Allaun: Yes, but why have the Government retreated from their statement last year that they would require the offset to be in full? Is my right hon. Friend aware that bringing home only one brigade out of nine is not good enough and will leave a large deficit?

Mr. Callaghan: As I have already explained, we are covering £72 million out of the £82 million, approximately, by including the redeployment of some troops. This seems to me to be a satisfactory start to our long-term objective.

Mr. John Hynd: In assessing the financial effects of this withdrawal of troops from Germany, has the Chancellor of the Exchequer taken into account the amount of land which will be required in this country for our troop operations, the compensation for damage to that land, and so on?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes; these calculations have been made in assessing budgetary costs, but we are concerned also with balance of payments costs.

Sir T. Beamish: The Chancellor said in his Budget statement that part of the balance would be covered by American arms purchases in this country. Since all American arms purchases are already being offset against the cost of the F111 and other American aircraft, how can this be done?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman must wait until I make a full statement when the three parties to the agreement have concluded their total negotiations.

European Economic Community

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he is giving to bringing the level of direct taxation into line with that ruling in the countries of the European Economic Community, in order to


facilitate this country's entry into the Community.

Mr. Callaghan: As I said in my Budget statement—[Vol. 744, c. 1002]—preliminary work on these matters is in hand.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the Government are really serious about an early entry into the Community, ought not work to be very far advanced in modifying a position in which, according to the Financial Secretary, a man with a higher salary in this country keeps only one-third of what his European opposite number keeps?

Mr. Callaghan: It depends what is meant by a "higher salary". At £5,000 per annum, for example, someone in this country would retain more than his opposite number in West Germany. But perhaps that is not a "higher salary".

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand, from what my right hon. Friend said about preliminary arrangements for the reorientation of direct and indirect taxation, that we are to take it that the Government are proposing some day to reduce direct taxation and increase indirect taxation, which will fall heavily on those with low incomes?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that that deduction could have been drawn from my Answer. Certainly I should think that the country ought to consider for a very long time before it alters its direct tax arrangements in the way proposed. It seems to me that some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are less concerned with getting into the Common Market than with getting reduced the tax burdens on their highly paid friends.

Sir T. Beamish: Has the Chancellor made any preparation for the introduction of an added value tax, in accordance with Common Market practice?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. After all, we do not yet know whether we are going into the Common Market, nor do we know whether a value added tax will be accepted by Common Market countries. Apart from putting preliminary work in hand to ensure what would be necessary, I think that it would be foolish of me to go further than that.

Mr. J. T. Price: Before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor allows himself to

be drawn into detailed arguments about adjustments in direct taxation to harmonise with the practice on the Continent, will he bear in mind that in E.E.C. countries indirect taxation is a much higher imposition on ordinary working people than in this country? The sales tax and things like that are a fundamental distinction, as against the practice in this country. I hope that he will not be led astray by people on the other side of the House who do not want to get into the Common Market as much as they want to get out of their tax obligations?

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend seems to be repeating my previous answer. I am very ready to get into a discussion on this. I am not ready to see the substantial transfer of burdens from the wealthiest in this country on to the backs of others under the pretext of getting into the Common Market.

Mr. Allason: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the revenue from tariffs on imports from European Economic Community countries for 12 months to the latest convenient date.

Mr. MacDermot: Protective duty receipts are not identified by country of origin of the goods concerned and I cannot give a precise figure; but for 1966 it was of the order of £70 million.

Mr. Allason: Is it not rather important to ascertain this figure, since presumably this will be a direct loss to the Exchequer in the event of our joining the Common Market? Is it not likely that this will be a very much larger figure as the country of origin of imports will tend to switch from other countries to European countries?

Mr. MacDermot: I do not think that follows. It is one of the factors which will have to be taken into account, but there will be other offsets, including direct revenue ones, such as the additional tariffs on imports from other countries.

Land Sale Valuations

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now considered the representations sent to him by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames in respect of a practice adopted by certain valuation officers in the Midlands in respect of cases involving sale of land prior to 6th April,


1967; whether this practice had his approval; and what steps he is taking to compensate persons subjected as the result of this practice to partial payment of an impost not in force at the material time.

Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend wrote to the right hon. Member on 23rd March. I cannot accept that valuation officers have adopted the practice he describes and the question of compensation does not arise.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his right hon. Friend's long, involved and rather entertaining letter. If I submit evidence to support this contention, in respect at any rate of one district valuer, will he take the necessary steps to have the decision reversed?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Sir.

Inland Revenue (District Valuers)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the establishment strength of Inland Revenue district valuers; and how far the number employed is below strength at present.

Mr. MacDerrnot: 2,304 valuers were in post on 3rd April. There is no fixed complement.

Mr. Brewis: How many extra district valuers does the hon. and learned Gentleman think will become necessary as a result of Measures of the last two years like the Land Commission Act and Capital Gains Tax?

Mr. MacDermot: It is impossible to estimate the number until we know the weight of work which will arise from the Land Commission, but obviously an increase will be required and vigorous steps are being taken to recruit and train more valuers.

Mrs. Thatcher: Do the "vigorous steps" include the offering of higher salaries?

Mr. MacDermot: No, but they do include direct recruit to the main grade of more experienced qualified people.

Government Contracts (Aircraft Industry)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take to ensure that in all

contracts with the aircraft industry, Her Majesty's Government shall have access to the firms' accounts, both during and after any contract.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy with regard to obtaining access to contractors' accounts for Her Majesty's Government, both during and after any aviation contract.

Mr. Callaghan: It is the Government's intention to obtain the right to equality of information with the contractor when prices are being negotiated; and post-costing rights where these would be of material help in fixing fair and reasonable prices and in checking that the price-fixing system as a whole is working satisfactorily. Discussion is going on with industry on both points.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say how far the C.B.I. has come along to agree with his view and how soon he expects to make a decision on the matter, or is he waiting until the Public Accounts Committee and the independent inquiry report on the matter?

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that negotiations with the C.B.I. will be concluded successfully very shortly, but they are still going on and I cannot say more about the C.B.I.'s views at this stage.

Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend give some attention to the system of the Department of Defence, United States, which gives very effective incentives towards increased efficiency as well as safeguards against rascality?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. I believe there is a close integration of exchange of information on these matters, but perhaps my hon. Friend will question the Secretary of State for Defence on this particular issue.

Mr. R. Carr: Will the Chancellor assure us that he accepts that equality of information, although extremely important, is but one of three links in this problem, the other two being calculations of overheads and profit formula, as was made clear in the Lang Report? Will he make clear that all three will be dealt with? Will he also give proper attention to developing good contracting procedures?

Mr. Callaghan: While I am in favour of the last part of that supplementary question, I am not ready to relate to an agreement all post-costing rights to a revisior of the profit formula. That is a separate issue which can be raised by industry at any time and discussed with the Government, but this information should be conceded in any case.

Mr. Lubbock: Is not one of the recommendations of the Lang Report that equality of information should be obtained by the Government? Why has it taken the Chancellor and his colleagues two years to get round to deciding on this matter in principle?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that is a fair question, and maybe we should have been more ruthless with industry than we have been. If we should have been, I acknowledge our defect in this respect, but we have tried to get their cooperation, and I trust that now we are going to get it.

Mr. Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend he ruthless now? Under the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939, he has power to ask for any books and papers to be made available, and then he has only to ask for a Ministerial Order. Will he make clear to the C.B.I. that he will use that power? Will he use it now?

Mr. Callaghan: This may have to be considered in suitable cases. The power is there if we cannot reach a satisfactory agreement with industry, but it is the job of the Government to work with industry if we can. I would therefore prefer to reach agreement than to use these powers. If it was impossible to get agreement with industry and I thought it necessary in the public interest to use these powers, of course they would be used.

Mr. R. Carr: Will the Chancellor answer my previous question about the calculation of overheads? When he speaks about being ruthless with industry, will he acknowledge that so far as this question was concerned it was February, 1966, before the Government began to get down to the job at all?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think the hon. Member is right about the date, but if he wishes to have a debate on it I should be very happy indeed to do

so. As regards overheads, this might be looked at too. At the moment the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is having negotiations on my behalf. I am concerned to see that public access to information is made available. I stand on that and the other questions can be looked at at any time.

Central and Local Government Expenditure

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimate of central and local government expenditure, excluding debt interest, but including net lending to public corporations, for 1967–68.

Mr. Callaghan: £14,893 million.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Chancellor aware that, even if he gets his 3 per cent. increase in growth this year, this will represent the highest proportion of our national product being taken by the central and local government in all our history? Is this the reason why his party's policies seem to be failing? Will he reverse this trend?

Mr. Callaghan: One day I hope to educate the hon. Member into seeing that public spending is not bad and private spending is not necessarily good. It depends on what it is spent on. That is what matters.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect which the steady rise in the expenditure of central and local governments will have on inflationary pressure in the economy.

Mr. Callaghan: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my Budget statement.—[Vol. 744, c. 990.]

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Would the Chancellor agree that it is not a question of private expenditure being bad and Government expenditure being good, but that this increase is taking place in a sphere which by its very nature does not contribute in a major way towards exports, which is his main problem?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that is a fair point. That is why I am very anxious to see private investment grow, because it is in that sector—private investment is


about 27 per cent. of the total—that increased exports would come. I certainly accept that point.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: If the Chancellor intends, as he said in his Budget Statement, to make room for the expected increase in private investment expenditure, what Government expenditure will he—to use his own words—rein back in order to make this improvement?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not want to continue last night's Budget debate now.

Personal Incomes

Mr. Dickens: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the percentage of total personal income distributed as wages and salaries, mixed income and property in 1966.

Mr. MacDermot: As the reply contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Dickens: Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that social inequality is in fact on the increase in this country, and has been so for the past decade or more? Is he aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House want to see the trend reversed in the course of the lifetime of this Parliament?

Mr. MacDermot: I can assure my hon. Friend that it has been reversed. I refer him to figures which I gave in the Budget debate. Compared with the previous year, in 1966, National Insurance benefits went up by 8½ per cent., wages and salaries by 6 per cent., income of self-employed was unchanged, while rents, dividends and interest went up by 2½ per cent.

Mr. Higgins: What percentage went to members of unions covered by the T.U.C.?

Mr. MacDermot: I am sure the hon. Member does not think that I have that figure in my head.

Following is the information:
The percentages of total personal income in 1966 attributable to each of the main types of income are shown in the table below. The table also shows the corresponding percentages for 1965, which have been revised since they were given in reply to a similar question by my hon. Friend on 17th May, 1966.

PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME BEFORE TAX



1965
1966


Wages and salaries
63·4
63·7


Forces' pay
1·6
1·6


Employers' contributions to national insurance etc. and to pension funds
5·6
5·7


Income from self-employment*
8·3
7·9


Rent, dividends and interest
12·0
11·7


Social security benefits, etc.
9·1
9·4



100·0
100·0


* Before providing for depreciation and stock appreciation.

Overseas Travel (Foreign Currency Allowance)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what saving in foreign exchange during the year ended 5th April, 1967, resulted from the £50 foreign currency limit applied to British people travelling abroad outside the sterling area; and what reduction in overseas travel by Britons outside the sterling area resulted therefrom; and whether he will restore the £250 limit on 1st June, 1967, or earlier.

Mr. Callaghan: Travel statistics for the year mentioned are not yet available. The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's Question is "No, Sir".

Sir G. Nabarro: If these figures are not available, how did the Chancellor arrive at the conclusion in his Budget statement that the time was not propitious to be a little more liberal in allowances for British travellers outside the sterling area? Is he not aware that British travellers are now reduced to a humiliating position in Europe by his derisory allowances? Would he not be a little more liberal with a small "1"?

Mr. Callaghan: A number of reasons enabled me to reach the conclusion I have reached, for example, the applications for additional allowances which are being reduced—I hope the hon. Member has not suffered—as well as the efforts by the travel trade to arrange cheaper holidays. All these have contributed to a useful saving. In present circumstances, when I am still working for a balance of payments surplus this year, I do not think it would be right that other countries should believe that we can let up


on a matter of this sort, when anybody can get a reasonable holiday abroad within the existing allowance.

Sir G. Nabarro: In view of the very unsatisfactory Answer from the Chancellor, I give notice that I shall raise the matter again at the earliest opportunity.

International Monetary Fund (Drawings)

Mr. Dickens: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to ask for an extension of the repayment period of United Kingdom borrowings from the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Callaghan: As I said in my Budget speech, the first drawing will be paid by the due date. On present prospects, I have no reason to believe that we shall not be able to repay the second drawing also or the due dates.—[Vol. 744, c. 976–7.]

Mr. Dickens: Would not the Chancellor agree that the first task must be to get the bankers off our backs in order that we can resume economic expansion in this country and fulfil our election pledges? Will he not now consider making these payments this year by liquidating portfolio investments?

Mr. Callaghan: There is an arrangement now in which those who sell foreign securities pay a proportion of the foreign exchange into the Exchequer. That is producing a very useful income at present. I do not propose to carry it further than that now.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Does not the Chancellor find it intensely embarrassing when so many of his hon. Friends advocate devaluation and welshing on financial commitments?

Mr. Callaghan: I find that no more embarrassing than having to explain the policy of the hon. Gentlemen from Northern Ireland.

Fruit Machines

Mr. Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek power to place meters on one-armed bandits which would record the amount inserted and the return payments to the users, in order that the actual profits accruing to the

owners of such machines could be taxed accordingly.

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir.

Mr. Ellis: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is time that we knew something about what was happening in this field? There are widely fluctuating reports of the amount of profit, ranging from single £s to many hundreds of £s per week from these machines. We should know what is going on as regards the operation of these machines.

Mr. MacDermot: My hon. Friend's proposal would be very expensive both in terms of equipment and of manpower, and I doubt whether it would work very satisfactorily.

Tax Form C.T.62

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what authority income tax form C.T.62 is issued; and whether he is aware that this and other forms are throwing a burden on companies, which interferes with their task of increasing production.

Mr. MacDermot: The form is issued by the Board of Inland Revenue under its general responsibility for the care and management of the Income Tax. The use of this form will help both the Department and companies to review their end year liability.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this form has every appearance of being a form required by Statute and that in the case of many companies, small companies in particular, the filling in of the form is throwing a very heavy burden on the available manpower?

Mr. MacDermot: I have looked at the form. I see nothing on it to bear out the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. As regards the burden on companies, I think that all that many companies, if not most companies, will be required to do will be in effect to answer the two simple questions in section one of the form.

Death Duties

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total revenue is obtained by taxes on inheritance.

Mr. MacDermot: Death duties produced 3⅓ per cent. of total tax revenue in 1966–67.

Mr. Irvine: The Chancellor only last week was congratulating those who were capable of saving. Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the most important reasons for saving is to provide for one's widow? In those circumstances, should not the Chancellor at least have another look at this particular question?

Mr. MacDermot: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will pay attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said. There are provisions within the existing Estate Duty law to relieve the burden on widows.

UNITED STATES INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATIONS

Mr. Newens: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy towards efforts which are being made by the United States Central Intelligence Agency and other United States intelligence organisations to infiltrate and influence organisations which function in British administered territories for purposes of subversion of law and order.

Mr. Heffer: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the policy towards efforts which are being made by the United States Central Intelligence Agency and other United States intelligence bodies to influence and infiltrate organisations which function in British administered territories for purposes of subversion of law and order.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir. I know of no activities of this kind in British administered territories.

Mr. Newens: Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the involvement of the C.I.A. in British Guiana before independence; and, if he is not aware of that, does not this show a gross inefficiency in the British security services? If the British Government were aware of it prior to independence, why did not they take action to warn the Americans off and to prevent the "fiddler" constitution from being imposed?

The Prime Minister: The circumstances to which my hon. Friend is purporting to refer, and which have been the subject of certain Press comments recently, relate to events before October, 1964. I am not responsible for what happened in British administered territories before 16th October, 1964.

Mr. Heffer: As these revelations have now been made, and have been proved up to the hilt, as far as I can see, would not my right hon. Friend now carry out a thorough investigation and at the same time indicate to the American authorities that we do not approve of this sort of activity and that they must keep out of our territory?

The Prime Minister: I am not in a position to refer to what happened before we had the responsibility for these matters; and these question, so far as they relate to that earlier period, should be put elsewhere. So far as British administered territories now are concerned, I have already said that I know of no activities of this kind. My hon. Friend can be pretty sure that, if there were any, I should.

Mr. Hogg: Are not there many foreign originating bodies seeking to subvert law and order in British administered territories, and why is it only those coming from the United States which excite hon. Members opposite?

The Prime Minister: Where such subversive activities have occurred in this country and elsewhere, I am sure that it has had the backing of the whole House when the security service of this country has sought to deal with them. It has had the backing of half the House at any rate when we have tried to deal with subversive organisations subverting law and order in Rhodesia.

Mr. Michael Foot: I concur entirely with what the Prime Minister has just said, but will not he consider that many of us regard very seriously the allegations which have been made that intervention was made by United States interests and money to overturn the Government of British Guiana at that time? Does not the Prime Minister recognise that he really ought to institute an inquiry as to whether these facts are correct and, if they are, to make representations to the United States Government that we intend this to


be stopped? Will he not say to the United States Government quite clearly that we do not want the C.I.A. interfering in our affairs?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that Guyana, now, is a self-governing territory for which we have no responsibility whatsoever. It is not for me to comment on the Press stories which my hon. Friend has obviously read, but they related to a period before we had any responsibility. If my hon. Friend could find a way of doing it, the right place to address such questions would be the Front Bench opposite—I would think almost certainly the Front Bench opposite below the Gangway.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is the Prime Minister referring to me?

EDUCATION (NATIONALISM)

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will initiate through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and elsewhere a campaign to reduce any emphasis upon nationalism in education, with a view to encouraging a sense of world comunity.

The Prime Minister: The United Nations Educatonal, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's entire programme already aims to create an environment in which a sense of world community can develop, Sir, but if my hon. Friend has any specific suggestions to make I would be happy to consider them.

Mr. Whitaker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with all respect to Celtic nationalist romantics, nationalism is a transitional historical phase and public re-education in this matter is necessary to arouse the demand for world development which will be essential in the future?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and I believe that it is the declared position of all parties in the House that the ultimate aim of us all is world government. U.N.E.S.C.O. was set up at the end of the war specifically to inculcate a sense of world community, and some of the best minds of that time and since have been devoted to that task through the medium of U.N.E.S.C.O.

Mr. Longden: Will the Prime Minister direct the attention of these campaigners especially to Scotland and to Wales?

AVIATION (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will transfer the aviation functions of the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Technology.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Marten: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the splitting up of this Ministry is giving rise to delays in decision on the ordering of aircraft?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, there is no evidence to justify that. There were very long delays in the ordering of aircraft when the Ministry of Aviation was responsible both for the aviation operations of the airlines and for the aviation industry. To judge from some of the decisions taken, it might well have been better if the delays had been even longer.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: As the Ministry of Technology now has greatly increased areas of interest, a policy which many of us strongly support, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be worth while publishing a Paper indicating clearly what the terms of reference of the Minister of Technology are?

The Prime Minister: I thought that this was well understood. My hon. Friend will recognise that it can do nothing but good for the aviation manufacturing industry that it should now come under a Department with wider responsibilities, as this means that aviation firms will have a chance to share in research and development work going beyond normal aviation responsibilities.

Mr. R. Carr: Is not the Prime Minister aware of the inordinately long delay over a decision about London's third airport? If this is not due to the splitting of Departmental responsibilities under the Board of Trade, what is the reason?

The Prime Minister: It is in no sense due to that, because this is a matter for exactly the same officials, who are now transferred to a different Department, and for the Ministers concerned. It has


been a very difficult question. It took the previous Government a very long time to come to any view about it, and I do not apologise for the fact that we have been taking our time over it. When we can make an announcement, we shall do so.

BRITISH BEACHES (OIL POLLUTION)

Mr. Alison: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between Government Departments in the matter of preventing oil pollution of British beaches; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 23rd March to a Question by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott)—[Vol. 743, c. 333.]—and to the White Paper, Command 3246, published on 4th April.

Mr. Alison: What steps have the Government taken to learn from French experience in combating pollution on Brittany beaches, and which Government Departments have taken such steps?

The Prime Minister: We and the French Government have been in close touch since long before the oil hit the Brittany beaches. We offered our help at that time and gave them a lot of practical advice based on our own experience. Equally, we shall learn from them. They, like us, have tried a whole series of measures, and some of theirs, like some of ours, have not been successful. But the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which has been unequivocally in charge of this operation from the beginning, will be glad to gain any experience from the French.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the various Departments concerned are to be congratulated on the skill and alacrity with which they tackled this phenomenal problem—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—with the assistance of the north-west winds which blew the slick away from our shores?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I thought that that welcome was very clearly meant from all parts of the House, and was shown in the debate which ended in unanimous approval of

the White Paper. The Government claim no credit for the direction of the wind at the time.

HOUSE OF LORDS

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister when he intends to publish his proposals for legislation to make changes in the composition, functions, and powers of the House of Lords.

The Prime Minister: I have as yet nothing to add to the reply I gave to a similar Question from my hon. Friend on 31st January.—[Vol. 740, c. 68.]

Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend take it that repetition of the Question indicates the worry which we on this side have about the limitation of the proposed legislation to the delaying powers of the House of Lords? Will he accept that nothing will be very satisfactory, at least to this side, unless it deals with the composition of the Lords in addition to their delaying powers, in accordance with our manifesto which stated that we would modernise Parliament in order to reinforce the democratic element in Government?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the concern which my hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends have on this matter, but, as there is no legislation before the House at this time and no indication of what it will be when it comes, I think that he is a little premature in referring to inhibitions or limitations in it.

Sir S. McAdden: Does the Prime Minister realise that he now has a wide field from which he can choose in order to alter the composition of the House of Lords, and is not he grateful for the happenings of last week, which will provide him with large numbers of recruits?

The Prime Minister: I cannot anticipate any recommendations which may be made to Her Majesty about future nominations for another House. The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, have rejoiced in the narrowing of the field which I have in this matter, in that apart from the two cases known to the House in October, 1964, I have not sought to nominate hon. Members from either side


to the other place while they are Members of this House.

Mr. Rowland: Does my right hon. Friend realise that alteration in the composition of the House of Lords might improve its reputation and, therefore, its authority and should accordingly be viewed with the greatest caution?

The Prime Minister: I know that this is a thought in the mind of many of my hon. Friends, and that view has often been expressed. While it is not for us to make references to another House, I think that many recent creations of noble Lords from all parts of the political world and more widely have greatly improved the authority of debates in the other place.

Mr. Lubbock: Is not the Prime Minister aware that serious concern has been expressed even in another place about the perpetuation of the hereditary principle, which many of their lordships think is an anachronism 57 years after the passing of the Parliament Act in 1910?

The Prime Minister: It would be inappropriate—and I am not sure that it would be in order—for me to comment on any debate in another place during the present Session, save in so far as I have referred to statements made by Ministerial spokesmen in the other place.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Baker: asked the Prime Minister when he now expects to receive the reports of the Royal Commission on Local Government.

The Prime Minister: Towards the end of 1968, Sir.

Mr. Baker: In view of the large amount of current legislation which impinges, in particular, on local government, will the Prime Minister consider asking the Royal Commission to produce an interim report so that hon. Member and others outside the House may have a chance to view the new legislation in that context?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of the work of the Royal Commission with the ever growing volume of work, wel-

fare and otherwise, which falls to the local authorities. But this must be a thorough review. Many of us feel that its establishment was long overdue. It has now been set up. It has already received written evidence from nearly 2,000 witnesses, and it is in the middle of taking oral evidence. It would be wrong for us to put undue pressure on the Royal Commission for a speedy report before it was properly considered. The question whether it might produce an interim report must be a matter for the Commission itself.

Mr. Heath: In the light of what the Prime Minister has just said about the time, naturally, to be taken by the Royal Commission, and, presumably, legislation which will follow it, will he give a categorical assurance that he will not use the time factor in the making of recommendations by the Royal Commission on Local Government as an excuse for delaying implementation of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundaries Commission?

The Prime Minister: That is an entirely separate question. This Question refers to the reports of the Royal Commission on Local Government. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to have a Question answered on the other matter—I know his difficulty in putting Questions down himself—perhaps he will arrange for one to be put down for answer by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Heath: As the Prime Minister says that they are separate questions, will he confirm that there will be no connection between this and the implementation of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundaries Commission?

The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to make any statement on this subject—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—until the matter has been fully considered by the Government and, of course, in discussion with other parties.

Mr. Heath: The country can now see clearly the reason for the London Government Bill last year and why the Prime Minister did not want the London borough elections to come next month. Does he realise that the two answers which he has just given will arouse the gravest suspicions in the country about


the constitutional propriety of his future actions?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is welcome to any suspicions he cares to harbour. He is entitled to enjoy what has happened in local government and the G.L.C. for as long as he wants, though remembering—as he is now trying to relate local government elections to Parliamentary elections—our success in sweeping the counties and the boroughs in 1958 and the fact that his party then doubled its majority only 18 months later. I hope that he will enjoy his fun while he can.

Mr. Bob Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave disquiet in the greater Tyneside area as a result of the long delay of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in announcing a decision? Will he seek to expedite the decision on the Tyneside review area?

The Prime Minister: We have made clear that in appropriate cases there is no reason why decisions should not be taken ahead of the Royal Commission's report. My right hon. Friend is giving thought to that particular case.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear to my right hon. Friend that the London Government Act, 1963 was designed, apart from any temporary setback, to give the Conservatives a built-in majority?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question is about the Royal Commission on Local Government.

Mr. Heffer: If by some mischance the Royal Commission should come up with such biased recommendations will my right hon. Friend ignore them?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Royal Commission's terms of reference did not extend to the London area, which was the subject of legislation some years ago. While the view was expressed very strongly from our side, in both Houses, that the design was to secure a set-up which, in all but a very abnormal year, would lead to a Conservative majority, it is only fair to say that no one really thought that it ought to go this far.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the Prime Minister confirm that his earlier Answers

are properly to be interpreted as a complete disavowal of gerrymandering on his part?

The Prime Minister: I thought that I made it clear that the suggestions of gerrymandering related to the Question I have just answered, and the Parliamentary boundaries are an entirely separate Question. There are many points to be considered. Certainly no decision has been taken on that matter and it is a separate question from the one I was answering.

R.A.F. AIRCRAFT (ACCIDENT, STEEPLE MORDEN)

Mr. Pym: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the crash of a Canberra bomber at Steeple Morden, Cambridgeshire, yesterday.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Shortly after four o'clock yesterday afternoon after a Canberra from the Operational Conversion Unit at the R.A.F. Station, Bassingbourn, crashed at Steeple Morden, near Royston, about three miles from the airfield. It fell on a private home which, I regret, received extensive damage.
The aircraft was on a training flight and had just completed a normal practice instrument approach in good weather and, in accordance with briefed instructions, had immediately taken off again. It climbed ahead normally to a height of about 300 feet and from this point the accident occurred. No distress signals were received from the aircraft.
A Board of Inquiry assembled last night.
All three R.A.F. members of the crew lost their lives. There were no civilian casualties.
I know that the House will join with me in expressing our deep sympathy with the bereaved.

Mr. Pym: The whole House will associate itself with the Minister's expressions of sympathy for the families of those who lost their lives and for the Royal Air Force.
Will the Minister ask the members of the inquiry to consider to what extent


flying training stations involve extra risks, because that is a factor which should be taken into account in the siting of such stations, of which there are two in Cambridgeshire? I also ask him for an assurance that, while no compensation can be truly adequate, his Department will be generous in its endeavours to make good, so far as it can, the loss and damage both to the families and to property.

Mr. Rees: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his first remarks about sympathy. I know of his great interest in the R.A.F. stations in Cambridgeshire, which he often demonstrates to me.
Extra precautions concerning our training stations will be examined, but to allay any anxiety about this I should say that the accident rate in the Royal Air Force Training Command is very good, because of the great care that is taken in training.
The Ministry of Defence, of course, accepts full responsibility for the damage and consequential losses and will deal with all claims as sympathetically and speedily as possible. The local defence land agent was at the scene of the crash this morning.

Sir A. V. Harvey: In view of the wide concern about this tragic accident, which everybody regrets, and the concern of local residents in the training areas, will the Minister seriously consider publishing the inquiry's findings to ensure that the public know what happened, provided that there is nothing secret attached to it?

Mr. Rees: As the hon. Member knows better than most, the findings of a board of inquiry are confidential to the service, for reasons that everybody accepts, but I promise, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that we shall make a full statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister ask the Board of Inquiry to look very carefully into the question of metal fatigue, as these are old planes? In some quarters the view has been expressed that there is a danger of metal fatigue in them.

Mr. Rees: It would not be for me to prejudge the issue. I assure the hon. Member that in the case of this Canberra this accident occurred long before any fatigue problem could arise, and that the general fatigue level laid down is extremely generous in the first instance.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [11th April]

Resolutions reported,

[For particulars of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 1011·23.]

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith on each Resolution, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).

First to Twenty-ninth Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [17th April]

Resolution reported,

AMENDMENT OF THE LAW

That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance, so, however, that this Resolution shall not extend to making—

(1) amendments of the enactments relating to purchase tax so as to give relief from tax, other than amendments making the same provision for chargeable goods of whatever description, or for all goods to which any of the several rates of tax at present applies—

(2) amendments of the enactments relating to selective employment tax so as to give relief from tax—

(a) by way of exemption from, or a reduction in the rate of, tax except in respect of all persons of the same descriptions relevant for determining the rate of the employer's flat-rate contribution with which the tax is combined, whether that contribution is under the National Insurance Acts or under the corresponding enactments in Northern Ireland; or
(b) by way of providing for payments to employers of an amount equal to the whole or a specified part of the tax paid if the proposed provision—

(i) is in respect of employers in part only of Great Britain, unless it is in respect of all employers not already entitled to such payments in a part of Great Britain which is included in the areas specified as development areas under section 15(2) of the Industrial Development Act 1966; or
(ii) extends to employers in Northern Ireland; or
(iii) is in respect of all persons in any particular description of employment in all parts of Great Britain, and relief in respect of the whole of the tax paid could be given in respect of that description of employment by an order under


section 9(1)(a) of the Selective Employment Payments Act 1966 adding that description of employment to the employments to which section 1 or 2 of that Act applies; or
(c) by adding or removing any employer to or from the employers to whom section 3 of that Act applies; or
(d) by amending the provisions of Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 to that Act;

(3) amendments of the Land Commission Act 1967.

Resolution read a Second time.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and upon the other Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and agreed to this day, and upon the Resolution of the House yesterday relating to Finance [Money], by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Diamond, and Mr. MacDermot.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE (No. 2)

Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with Finance, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 235.]

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL

3.46 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
My first purpose is to show why the Bill is necessary. Its principal objective is to ensure that no one shall install or use a television set except under the authority of a licence granted by me. The Bill is necessary because there is at the moment a quite unacceptable amount of evasion of the requirement to buy the licence.
On 31st January, 1967—the latest date for which we have a figure—there were about 16 million households with television sets, and on the same date there were about 14 million households licensed to receive television. So, there are about two million evaders in the country; and the loss of revenue is now about £10 million a year. These are the facts.
Hon. Members will all agree that the loss of £10 million of revenue yearly is something that no Government could tolerate. This is money due to the Exchequer, and it is our duty to see that it is paid. But, more than that, those who cheat and do not take out a licence are being subsidised by the viewers who do. When the honest citizen pays £5 for a licence, he is, with evasion at its present level, in effect paying 12s. because of the evaders. The 14 million households who do pay have every reason to expect the Government to do something about the 2 million who do not.
The present methods of enforcing the licence fee system are not by themselves enough. I have taken a very close look at the existing machinery to see what changes and improvements are needed, and to see whether it is being operated with the necessary vigour and drive. There are, of course, some faults and failings and there are ways in which the present arrangements can be tightened up. But these defects are of a marginal kind, and nothing like enough to account for evasion on the present scale. Adjusting and improving the existing machinery, and ensuring that it is effectively used, will not by itself be enough. Some quite new means of tackling the problem of evasion is obviously required.
Even so, we are at the moment initiating prosecutions for evasion at the rate of 30,000 a year. But these represent merely the top of the iceberg. My objective in the Bill is to see that licences are taken out by all who use sets; and prosecution is the last in a series of steps designed to achieve this objective.
In a perfect world, everyone would take out a television licence when his household got its first set; and then renew the licence annually. But this is not a perfect world. Of course, the overwhelming majority of households have long since had their first set and the task is very largely a matter of seeing that annual renewals take place. Not surprisingly, some people forget that it is 12 months since they last renewed their television licence, and so we remind them. Sometimes we remind them three times. If we get no response, or a response which needs looking into, we pay a call on the household in question. This is a satisfactory system for households already noted in our records and staying in them, but there are those who do not get into our records, or who, having been in, disappear from them, usually because of moving.
For them we have other instruments at our disposal—the detector cars and postal combing. The part which detector cars play is self-explanatory. They detect television sets in use and can demonstrate beyond reasonable denial that a licence is needed in a particular house. As hon. Members know, I intend to make greater use of detector cars. The number which we have is being increased from nine to 20.
We also use postal combing, which, as the term implies, involves inquiring by letter of households which are not licensed to use a television set. Over a periodic cycle, the local head postmaster will inquire of every unlicensed household of which he knows whether it has a set and, if there is no reply, or if the reply suggests a need to do so, he will have the inquiry followed up by a visit.
I hope that the House would agree that these measures represent a considerable attempt to ensure that the licence revenue due is, in fact, paid, but, plainly, they are not enough and something more is needed. Why is this so and why are the measures proposed in the Bill what

we regard as the best way in which to reinforce the present arrangements? In essence, the basis for any effective enforcement of the licence system requires a comparison of two lists—an up-to-date list of all the households in which television sets are installed or used, and a list of all the households with a television licence. If a household is on the first and not on the second list, there is an inquiry to be made. The problem lies in making the first list as complete as possible and the plain fact is that present methods cannot do this anything like quickly enough.
Hon. Members will understand that we are not dealing with a static situation, that the number of households is not fixed and that they do not stay at the same address. In some urban areas households move at an average rate of one in 10 per annum. So we have a growing and changing target. As I have said, we need an up-to-date and complete list of all households in which television sets are installed or used. The Bill will give us the means of getting this list by providing that television dealers, when they dispose of a set by whatever kind of transaction, shall notify the Post Office of the fact.
In this way, we shall know that a set has been installed or used at a given address and we shall then see to it that the address is on the list. That will account for all the new transactions and over a sufficient period of years we can derive from it a more up-to-date list of television households.
But there is also the problem of households which move. Here, we start with a backlog of 2 million cases which would be left untouched by the new methods of enforcement if we did no more than this. So the Bill also provides for a power by which I can ask rental companies and hire-purchase companies to notify me within a specified time—not less than one year of my asking for the information—of the names and addresses of people who already hold sets on hire, or who are paying instalments or rental to the company in question. Upwards of 50 per cent. of television sets in Britain are now rented and to this percentage one must add those already held on hire-purchase agreements. This power will enable us to cut into existing evasion decisively and immediately.
So far, my purpose has been to show why the present arrangements for combating evasion need reinforcement and why the particular means of reinforcement in the Bill have been chosen. So far, I have been concerned with the detection of evasion. I come now to the second prong of the attack, to the deterrent. The deterrent is, of course, the penalty to which the convicted evader is liable. As things stand, the maximum fine which the courts may impose are £10 for a first offence and £50 for a subsequent offence. I believe that hon. Members will agree that these amounts are far too low and quite out of scale with the amount of the licence fee. Obviously, some evaders will cheerfully risk detection while the price of doing so remains as low as it is. The Bill therefore provides for a very large increase in the maximum fines, from £10 to £50 for a first offence and from £50 to £100 for subsequent offences.
It will be helpful to the House if, at this point, I refer to a suggestion which has been made to me. At a very early stage in my discussions with the various associations representing the television dealers they suggested that the first prong of the attack—the supply by them of information—might not be necessary. They proposed that we should provide for a drastic increase in the amount of the penalties and see whether that by itself would suffice, before involving the trade in the business of enforcing the licence fee system. This was a very understandable point of view, but, after consideration, I felt bound to reject it. It must be made clear beyond all doubt that we mean to stop evasion. We must have both prongs of the attack.
Evaders must understand two things. First, if they persist in their evasion they will be detected; they will appear on the list of households with televisions and, for the reasons I have given, we must have the help of the trade so as to make this list as complete and as up to date as possible. Secondly, evaders must understand that the fines to which they will be liable will be many times larger than they now are.
Another suggestion made to me, but not by the trade, was that no television set should be disposed of by a dealer

unless his client could show him a licence to use or install the set. This sounds attractively simply and at first sight I myself thought that it was the way in which to do it. The only difficulty is that it will not work. The unit of licensing is, in effect, the household, because the licence covers the set's use by the licensee's family and domestic staff at the same address. Not everyone in a household need have the same name. Nor would it be practicable, when households changed their addresses, to insist that the change be recorded on the licence. The man behind the shop counter would not necessarily have reason for suspicion if the licence tendered to him were not in the name of the person buying or hiring the set, or if the address on the licence were not that to which the set was to be sent.
In these circumstances, it would be plainly unreasonable to ask the trade to accept—and quite unworkable in practice to try to impose on dealers—the responsibility of judging whether a licence produced for inspection was, in fact, the licence for the household in question. Even if the attempt were made, hon. Members can see where it would lead. If the name and address were not an infallible test in all cases—and I have shown that they would not be—the less scrupulous dealer would be able to regard any licence tendered to him as the relevant one. If less scrupulous dealers accepted any licence as relevant, the conscientious dealer would be at risk of losing business to him. In the result, this idea is one through which a coach and horses could be driven.
There is another point on which some confusion may have arisen. It has been reported that I am allowing evaders a period of amnesty. I want to make it unmistakably clear that the information which I shall be getting from dealers will not relate only to new transactions after the Bill has come fully into force. I want that to be clearly understood. As I have explained, I shall be asking for the names and addresses of hirers and purchasers under all existing rental and hire-purchase agreements. Those evaders who think, "I'm all right, Jack. I got my set before the scheme started" will be making a very sorry mistake.
No doubt there are quite a few uneasy consciences among the evaders. Some


may think that if they go to a post office and take out a licence they will he asked awkward questions and render themselves liable to prosecution. I want everybody to know that he is at no risk whatever if, before being detected, he takes out a licence. No awkward questions will be asked. They will not be prosecuted.
But if they go on evading, then they will most certainly be at risk, and they will be prosecuted. Their liability will be many times the price of a licence. Let me be quite clear. I am not saying that we are for the time being stopping prosecutions of detected evaders. Not at all. If evaders do not take out licences, and are detected, they are just as liable to prosecution as they have ever been. But if an evader gets a licence before he is detected, he will not be questioned or prosecuted.
Before concluding this general account of the Bill, I would like to add this. In preparing the scheme, for associating television dealers with enforcement of the licence system, I have had the benefit of advice and thoroughly constructive criticism from the associations representing the trade. I have had fruitful discussions with them.
Let me say at once that they would much prefer that they should not be involved. I am the more grateful to them for their unqualified willingness to accept that, since there had to be such a scheme, they would do their best to help me design one which would be thoroughly workable and fully effective. I pay tribute to their public-spirited attitude. For my part, I have done all that I can to limit the burden on the dealers.
Tightening up on broadcast receiving licence evasion is not the only way in which the Bill is intended to help law-abiding citizens, who constitute the great majority of the public. I have, as the House knows, been very disturbed at the situation in which various portable radio transmitters are widely available on the market ate are purchased in fairly large quantities, but cannot be used legally, because I am unable to license them.
Some people have been prosecuted for using walkie-talkies. Understandably, they have been critical of the Government for allowing these sets to be on the market at all. Other people, knowing that I will

not license the use of these sets, have resisted the temptation to use them.
This is clearly the right thing to do, but these people, too, are critical of the fact that the sets are freely available. I would like to make clear why I cannot legalise their use, and why it is in the interests of the public as a whole that I should not do so.
The more radio is used, and the greater the variety of purposes involved, the greater the need for careful planning and the greater the need to control the availability of equipment which does not fit into such planning. This is particularly so in this densely populated country of ours. Even in the United States, where it is easier to use frequencies many times over in different widely-separated localities, they are finding that the control of radio is becoming more and more difficult.
I am therefore, not prepared to license the use of sub-standard equipment which it wasteful of precious frequency space or which causes interference in other frequency bands than the one it is nominally using. Nor can I license the use of imported equipment, which even though it may be good of its kind, is not designed for use within our own national frequency plan.
In the interests of radio users generally, and as a matter of consumer protection, the Government consider that powers are needed to prevent such equipment being imported or manufactured for use in this country. I have been urged to bring in such protection from both sides of the House.
Another way in which the Bill will help to give further protection to radio users is through provisions designed to ensure that television receivers are so constructed as to prevent or reduce the possibility of them causing interference with neighbouring sets. It may not be generally realised that television receivers can radiate electro-magnetic energy, and that beyond a certain level this radiation can interfere with nearby sets—on the other side of a party wall, for example.
British manufacturers are already doing what they can in co-operation with my engineers, to improve matters, but they would, I am confident, welcome the introduction of a measure of control to ensure that the better standards are applied


generally to all makes of set which are used in this country.
I now turn to a brief account of the Clauses of the Bill. Part I requires dealers in television sets to provide me with information about the sale and hire of television sets.
Clause 1 requires television dealers, with certain exceptions, to register with me and to give the addresses where records are kept and to which I am to send notices under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. The short point is that unless dealers register, there can be no reasonable certainty that all are complying with the provisions of the Bill. Dealers will be given 28 days from a day to be appointed by me by Order within which to register.
Clause 2 provides that, after the date by which he is required to register, every dealer who deals directly with the customer, shall notify me of every transaction involving the disposal of a television set and keep certain records of such transactions. Other dealers, that is to say, rental companies and hire purchase finance companies, are also required to keep certain records of transactions under which they collect the payments direct from the customer.
The particulars to be notified and recorded are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. The notifications are, of course, the main continuing feature of this part of the Bill. As regards the keeping of records, it is a matter of businesslike procedure.
Clause 3 empowers me to call for further information. This is of two kinds. First, there is the case of the person who has a set on a rental or hire purchase, or credit sale agreement, and who, having failed to renew his television licence, is found by the Post Office to have moved. In order to trace him, the Post Office needs to be able to ask whether the dealer knows his client's new address. The power I seek is given by Clause 3(1).
The second kind of additional information relates to sets held on agreements entered into before this part of the Bill comes into effective operation and still in force. As I have explained, this provision is the one which will enable us to make an immediate inroad on the £10 million a year, or the 12s. that each

licence holder is, in effect, paying for the evaders.
Accordingly, subsection (2) of Clause 3 empowers me, by notice in writing, to require a dealer to inform me of all agreements entered into before this part of the Bill comes into effective operation, and still subsisting at the date on which he gives me the information. There is to be a minimum period of 12 months in which to provide the information. For some larger concerns, in particular, the task is bound to be quite a sizeable one, and that is why we are allowing a fair amount of time in which to do it.
Clause 4 deals with the method of sending notices, notifications or statements authorised or required by the Bill.
Clause 5 makes non-compliance with any of the provisions of Part I of the Bill an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, and liable to the penalties for which, as amended by the Bill, it will provide—that is, to a maximum fine of £50 for a first offence, and £100 for a further offence.
Clause 6 is the Interpretation Clause. There is a comprehensive definition of television dealer. The dealer who complies with the Bill must not be exposed to unfair competition. But the definition, naturally, does not extend to sale by the private citizen, sales to the trade, or by the ordinary auctioneer who acts as the agent for the seller of a television set.
I now come to Part II of the Bill. Clause 7 empowers me to make Orders specifying certain wireless telegraph apparatus. Apparatus specified in any such order may not then be made or imported without my authority, and on such terms and conditions as may be attached to that authority. The authority may be either general, published in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes, or given individually in writing to the person concerned.
These arrangements are intended to prevent or reduce the risk of interference with the use of wireless transmitting and receiving apparatus generally. As I have said, in a densely populated country such as ours, interference can create particularly difficult problems, and we need to ensure that apparatus conflicting with the planned use of radio frequencies, one of our most precious


commodities, is not available to interfere with authorised services.
The Clause also makes it an offence to contravene its provisions, or to fail to comply with the terms and conditions attached to an authority which I may have given for the manufacture or importation of particular apparatus otherwise prohibited under an order.
Clause 8 empowers the Minister of Transport to include in the form of application for a vehicle excise licence questions designed to establish whether a radio is fitted in the vehicle. My right hon. Friend will not make use of this new power until the issue of vehicle excise licences has been centralised. But when this has been done the way will have been opened to empower me to enforce this requirement more effectively. At present, this is an extremely difficult matter to enforce.
Clause 9 effects certain necessary amendments to the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949. Subsection (1) clarifies the territorial extent of Part I of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, which deals with the licensing of wireless telegraphy: and subsections (2) and (3) remove certain anomalies in the 1949 Act concerning my control over the use of radio equipment of ships and aircraft of other Countries.
Clause 10 makes a minor alteration to Part II of the 1949 Act, which is designed to deal with interference with wireless telegraphy. At present, the provisions of Part II of the Act apply only to interfering apparatus which is not itself wireless telegraphy apparatus, such as electric motors; the Clause extends these provisions to wireless telegraphy apparatus—that is, to another television set. As I indicated earlier, the main purpose of this change is to enable me to make regulations specifying the requirements to be complied with by manufacturers and importers of television receivers so that they will not interfere with neighbouring receivers.
Clause 11 makes several changes in the penalty provisions of the 1949 Act. The maximum penalties are increased as follows:
Unlicensed broadcast reception:—for the first offence from £10 to £50 and for a subsequent offence from £50 to £100.
For most other offences: from £100 to £400.
From what I said earlier, the House will, I think, agree with the need for realistic fines for television licence evasion. With the present £10 maximum on first conviction, an offender who has been evading for over two years makes a profit.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Under the 1949 Act, there are certain provisions for a term of imprisonment of three months. Would the right hon. Gentleman relate those provisions to the offences in the Bill?

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General will deal with that when he winds up the debate.
The 1949 Act also provided that a court might, in addition to any other penalty, order all or any of the apparatus to be forfeited to the Postmaster-General. Clause 11 of the Bill provides for this to apply even if the apparatus in question is not the property of the offender, for example, if it is on rental or hire purchase.
In principle, liability to forfeiture may be regarded as an important part of the deterrent against evasion, and, on this argument, one to which all evaders, no matter on what terms they hold their sets, should be exposed. There is, I realise, the alternative view that the forfeiture of a set held on hire penalises the hiring company, and not the evader. These are the arguments: and the more persuasive consideration seems to me to be the desirability of reinforcing, quite generally, the deterrent against the use of unlicensed sets.
However, I accept without reserve the need, in cases where the set was on hire or hire purchase, to provide a safeguard to the hiring company. The Bill puts the disposal of forfeited sets entirely at my discretion. I would return the forfeited set to the hiring company unless, in a particular case, there appeared to me to be a convincing reason to the contrary. This would ensure that traders will not suffer unfairly through the punishment of evaders.

Sir Eric Errington: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to put that into the Bill when forfeiture occurs and


the hire purchase or hire company loses thereby?

Mr. Short: I have looked at this matter very carefully, as the hon. Gentleman would expect. I take the view that the disposal of the sets must remain in the hands of the Postmaster-General I have given this assurance, that, except where there are convincing reasons to the contrary, I would propose in every case to return the set to the company.
The Clause also permits the court to order that, on pain of further penalty, apparatus ordered to be forfeited may not be disposed of otherwise than by delivering it up to the Postmaster-General.
Clause 12 makes provision for certain procedural matters not covered by the 1949 Act: notably by defining jurisdiction of the courts and powers of enforcement of the police in relation to wireless offences committed in territorial waters, as has been done in the Marine, etc., Broadcasting (Offences) Bill in relation to broadcasting offences committed in territorial waters.
In Part III of the Bill, Clause 13 relates to the making of regulations and orders, and Clause 14 contains the financial provisions. This concludes my outline of the main provisions of the Bill. I will not keep the House longer. My hon. Friend will deal with any questions or criticisms that hon. Members may wish to raise.
I hope that the House will feel that this Bill holds a fair balance between the need to end licence evasion, on the one hand, and the interests of the trade, on the other. I believe that it will be welcomed by the vast majority of law-abiding people, and I invite the House to give it an unopposed Second Reading.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan: In accordance with the custom of the House, I start my speech by declaring my interest as a director of Granada Television Rental Limited, a company directly affected by the proposals in the Bill.
This debate on Second Reading serves to discuss the Bill's objects in broad terms. To these we on this side of the House have no objection; in fact, we support them—I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to divide the House tonight. The evasion of broadcasting

licences has reached the proportions of scandal. The dodgers are riding on the backs of those who pay. The B.B.C. is deprived of a significant portion of its rightful income, and I think that it is inevitable and right that the Government should take steps to deal with the situation.
However, when we reach the Committee stage, and discuss in detail the various ways in which the Postmaster-General has chosen to achieve his object, I forecast more disagreement between the two sides of the House, for although we are grateful to the Postmaster-General for the trouble which he has taken to explain a highly complex Bill to a non-technical House of Commons he has certainly not said enough to satisfy us, for instance, that the most sensible way to catch licence evaders is this very laborious system of listing six pieces of information about millions of law-abiding licence holders and their sets, and employing thousands of extra civil servants to cope with those facts, composed, no doubt, by hundreds of extra clerks in the television showrooms and shops throughout the country.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman has referred to six matters of which the dealer has to notify the Postmaster-General when a set is sold or let on hire. Would he say how long, in his estimation, it will take a clerk to make out these particulars on a form?

Mr. Bryan: I would not think that each form would take particularly long. However, when one considers the millions involved this will be a very considerable task. The fact that the Bill allows a year for the collection of this data is presumably acknowledgment that this will be a fairly big exercise.
Part I of the Bill deals with licence evasion. We on this side of the House do not underestimate the problem. I put the evasion at a higher figure than that given by the Postmaster-General. I wonder whether the Assistant Postmaster-General would give more details of exactly how the figure of 2 million evaders has been reached. As far as I can discover, the B.B.C. certainly does not vouch for the accuracy of the figure.
I have tried to reach a likely figure on reasoning in this way. Since the war—


since 1948, in fact—about 25 million television sets have been sold or rented. There are today about 14 million licences. It follows that the difference of 11 million represents sets either destroyed since 1948, or sets in use but not licensed. I suppose that those in the trade might agree that nearly all the 4 million sets sold before 1954 are by now out of action. That means that, since 1954, 7 million sets have either been destroyed or are unlicensed.
If the Postmaster-General's figure of 2 million licence evaders is true, it follows that 5 million sets sold since 1954 are out of use. This I do not believe. We have only to see the huge number of box type television sets—a type last built in 1958—in the windows of the television rental and retail shops to realise that, owing to the very high deposit now required on a new set or one that is less than three years old, the stock of sets in use is quite artifically old. From all these considerations, my estimate of television licence evasion would be much higher than 2 million.
It is also worth noticing—and it would be in line also with the percentage of licence evasion—that in the early days one could definitely gauge evasion. For instance, in the first six years to 1953 2,835,000 sets had been sold. None of them was more than five years old and therefore, presumably, all were in use, as only 2,142,000 licences had been taken out. So that it would appear that at that time one set in every four sets was not being licensed. That is all we need to do to gauge the size of the problem. The number of households, which is often quoted, is not altogether accurate, because clubs, pubs, schools, hospitals, and so on, have television sets.
I have conceded to the Postmaster-General that his problem is large—and, in my opinion, larger than he thinks—but I do not yet concede that he has chosen the correct solution. Before he makes all traders into informers, he must satisfy us that he does not already possess adequate and even more effective alternative powers. Whatever may be our disagreements in the House on the cause of the rise in the crime rate generally, I should have thought that we were all agreed that the biggest deterrent is the fear of detection.
Now, on this, the very eve of the publication of the Bill, the Postmaster-General has suddenly stumbled on that truth, and let me be the first to congratulate him on the phenomenal success of the combined efforts of his detector vans—fear of higher penalties and the wise amnesty that he has declared. Of these various items, I would put the detector van as being by far the strongest deterrent of all of them.
During Question Time last week the hon. Gentleman said that in January and February 68,000 extra television licences had been taken out. In Southend, where detector vans have been at work, I read that in four days more than 3,000 new licences were taken out. Could we now have the full Southend story? How long did the campaign last? How many vans were used? How many prosecutions are likely? How many extra licences had been taken out by the end of the campaign? The startling results that have been produced ought to awaken the right hon. Gentleman to the powers he already has.
I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman cannot now reinforce success instead of diverting his efforts and those of a thousand or more clerks into the tiresome and abortive work of listing the names of the owners of licences who are not breaking the law. Could he not increase the number of these vans to a greater extent than from nine to 20? Nine is a very small number indeed. If there are only nine cars now spread over the whole country, there is no fear whatsoever of a small provincial town ever seeing a van at all. Even if we increased the number to 20 it would still mean only one van to 2½ million people.
Will the Postmaster-General describe these vans? Are they expensive or cheap? What is the cost of keeping one on the road for a year? When we think that the provisions of the Bill will cost, about £100,000 plus, what it costs the affected companies, television dealers and traders, it seems to me almost certain that a multiplication of the detector vans would be a cheaper and far more effective way of doing the job.
The Assistant Postmaster-General probably agrees that already, without any excessive publicity, he has had these results. I should have thought that with top-class


publicity and a really large fleet of these vans the Postmaster-General might well find himself on the way to a bloodless and glorious victory, with no one more surprised than the conqueror—

Mr. Edward Short: Perhaps I might say that I think that the Bill is what has made many evaders pay up.

Mr. Bryan: That is a matter of speculation, and I am arguing in the opposite sense. I have already said that it is a deterrent. If a detector van is permanently stationed in Manchester, for instance, and people do not know whether it will be in Chapel Street or High Street, I can imagine that to be a great deterrent to the evaders—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: To prove the hon. Gentleman wrong, one has only to take the analogy of the vehicle excise duty dodgers. Wherever the hon. Gentleman cares to look, he will see hundreds of these tax dodgers. They are not worried about the deterrent.

Mr. Bryan: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman satisfactorily, as this is a problem he has studied probably more than any other hon. Member. I have not done so, but have studied this problem rather more.
In these new circumstances, we ask the right hon. Gentleman—and we shall press our request in the Committee—to postpone the effects of Part I of the Bill until they are proved to be absolutely necessary. The Postmaster-General has already paid tribute to the co-operation of the traders in the preliminary discussions on the Bill. The Electronic Renters' Association, the Radio and Television Retailers' Association and other representative bodies have taken a thoroughly responsible attitude towards the Bill, on the assumption that, as it was inevitable, they would do their very best to make it work with minimum friction and dislocation. On the other hand, I do not think that they have ceased to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that they are against Part I in both principle and practice.
I do not put the Postmaster-General in the same category as the First Secretary, who, a few months ago, saw nothing unusual or un-British in inviting housewives to report to him the names of any grocers who put up the price of butter, although

the grocers would have been quite within their rights to have done so. Nevertheless, the requirement that dealers should report the details of their private transactions with customers to the Government is only acceptable in the last resort, when it has been clearly demonstrated to be an essential element in the campaign to stop licence evasion.
Having recorded our objections in principle, I would point out how clumsy, wasteful, frustrating and inaccurate Part I will be in practice. The Bill empowers the Post Office to require the dealer to supply six items of information about every customer who buys or rents a set. It makes a rental company liable to supply the same details about any customer on its books. As I said just now to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), the Bill itself admits this to be a lengthy process by allowing a year in which to supply the information. It follows that, at the date of submission, this must be inaccurate because it will be about a year old. As the average length of a rental contract is perhaps four years, by the time the Post Office has done anything with these lists, they are bound to be wildly inaccurate.
I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to picture to us the immediate reaction of the Post Office when a couple of pantechnicons arrive carrying the lists, for example, of Radio Rentals and D.E.R., totalling about 2½ million names. If the lists are grouped according to districts, they will be showroom districts and will not correspond to Post Office districts. If they are the product of central accounting or computer systems, they will be alphabetical. What will the Post Office do about a list of, say, 200,000 Smiths dotted throughout the country—or, probably more accurately, shifting around the country?
I ask the hon. Gentleman also to imagine the time-wasting frustration of compiling these lists, especially in the non-mechanised offices of the smaller dealers. Having gone through all these toils, my guess is that it will be found—if, indeed, anything is revealed—that licence evaders tend not to rent their sets. By definition, the renter of a set is a regular payer who does not mind his possession of a set being known and recorded. Yet the rental companies bear the main brunt


of the Bill, being liable to supply a continuing history to the Post Office, while a straight sale is reported once and for all. How will the Bill cater for the dealer or auction room selling second-hand articles which often include television and radio sets? Person-to-person private sales will also be a problem.
The proposals under Part I will involve the trade in a licence control procedure objectionable in principle and unpromising in practice, and we ask, and shall continue to press the Postmaster-General, by Division in Committee, to test and exploit more fully his present powers before he resorts to the cumbrous inefficiency of this new method.
Clause 11 deals with penalties, and I have already said that we agree with increased penalties. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman seems to be tending almost towards leniency when one remembers that in the last Measure he ushered through the House he ordained 'hat any fan sending a postcard to a disc jockey would be liable to imprisonment for a couple of years. We shall oppose those parts of the Clause allowing him to confiscate an unlicensed rented television set from the user and not return it to its true owner, the rental company. He has explained this, but we are not satisfied. On the face of it, one must ask what sort of justice it is that punishes the innocent owner but not the law-breaking renter, who can then go off and rent or buy another set elsewhere.
I do not see where the deterrent lies in this if when one's set has been confiscated, one is allowed to get another round the corner at once. Assurances that this will rarely happen are beside the point. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), who said that this must be put in words in the Bill in order to be satisfactory. In the context of the compulsory trade returns procedure, it seems ironical that a rental company, having told subscribers of their licence responsibility on the rental form and having given the names and addresses of subscribers to the Post Office and perhaps, in specific instances, having, on Post Office request, reported that a subscriber is still on the books, should have to suffer the penalty of confiscation of its property. It is not just.
The presentation of the Bill clearly presupposes that the licence is the best way to finance the B.B.C. I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to tell us on what ground the Government make this assumption. We might think that this is somewhat wide of the Bill, but it is important, if we are to put all this effort into trying to stop avoidance, that we should know whether the licence is necessary at all.
During the long wait for the White Paper on Broadcasting, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor told us that one of the delaying factors was the thoroughness of the investigation by a Government committee into B.B.C. finances and ways of raising the necessary revenue. After all this rumination, the White Paper came out without any change being proposed in financial policy. Will the hon. Gentleman lift the veil from this investigation by the committee? What did it discover? What other methods of financing did it consider and why were they turned down?
The licence seemed an easy way to raise money in the palmy days, as one might call them, when its product automatically mounted on the rising tide of new viewers. But the time has ceased to rise and the licence is exposed as a particularly inefficient way of gathering money. That inefficiency is really the reason for the Bill.
We know that the B.B.C. has strong views on financing by advertising, but can the argument about advertising lowering the tone of a programme be seriously applied now to the new, continuous pop programme? If advertising were allowed only on that programme it would surely be an effective and harmless money-raiser.
I sincerely recommend this idea to the right hon. Gentleman, for if he finds no new source of revenue he will leave his successor a horrible legacy. Under Socialism, the State-sponsored broadcasting organisation is automatically entrusted with all new developments, as we have seen with local sound radio and shall no doubt see with the fourth-rate television channel. It follows that the B.B.C. will always need more money and that the continuing rise in the licence will remain a festering sore until a new source has been found. Has the right hon. Gentleman ever thought what the


licence would be now had the Socialists won the 1951 election and the I.T.A. had never been born and raised its money as it does? I shall not make calculations and draw the fire of the B.B.C. once again on that.
But if the licence is to be the sole source of revenue, can the right hon. Gentleman think of a better way of collecting it? Since, as we estimate, probably nine-tenths of all homes have television sets, would it not be possible to add it to the rate demand? Those not owning a television set could strike the figure off the demand and the Post Office would have a ready-made list of those who claimed not to own or rent a set.
This would, of course, be all open and above board, not like the cost of local radio, which will come out of the rates on condition that it is not shown on the rate demand note. Many councils now have schemes for payment of rates by instalments. If the licence were paid with the rates, it could be paid in instalments and people could pay as they listened and viewed and not in advance.
This is really a requirement which no business except a State monopoly could get away with. Nothing is more striking that the contrast between the "pay up or else" attitude of the Post Office in its sales of licences and the endless thought and ingenuity shown by dealers and renters in their search for terms and ways of payment most convenient or attractive to their customers. This is well worth considering as well.
The House was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of Part II of the Bill, which certainly needed explaining. Nevertheless, I do not believe that, even now, he has said enough to sweep away the doubts of the amateur radio enthusiasts who, no doubt, have been writing to him in greater numbers than to me. There is clearly strong feeling about what the Bill might do to their hobby.
I think that it is accepted that the Postmaster-General requires certain extra powers to deal with interference such as that created by the thousands of Japanese walkie-talkie radios one can now buy in the Tottenham Court Road for £6 or £7 a pair. What we shall want to investi-

gate in Committee is whether the right hon. Gentleman has not fallen into his old "sledge-hammer to crack a nut" failing of demanding powers far wider and more sweeping than are adequate for his purpose.
In the April bulletin of the Radio Society of Great Britain, which is the paper of the amateur enthusiast, there is a depressing article entitled, "All Amateurs Closed Down". Part of it read:
The heading of Part II of the Bill is innocuous enough—'Miscellaneous'—but the side heading should give the red light—'restriction' of manufacture or importation of certain apparatus'. Under section 7(1) and (2) of the Bill if the P.M.G. 'specifies' apparatus, no person shall manufacture whether or not for sale, any apparatus of that class or description; and the importation of apparatus of that class or description is prohibited. The only limitation placed on the powers of the P.M.G. to specify equipment is that it must be related to 'interference', which could be extended logically to include any form of receiving, test or transmitting equipment containing an oscillator.
Letters from people whom I have interviewed say that this fact in itself broadens the field so widely that the Postmaster-General could prohibit the manufacture of a tremendously wide field of electronic and radio equipment. It would have a grave effect on the amateur radio enthusiasts, all of whom possess licences issued by the Postmaster-General. Perhaps we may have an assurance on that point from the hon. Gentleman.
On the last Post Office Bill, we were unsuccessful in altering one Clause by Amendment in Committee. I hope that this time the right hon. Gentleman will approach the Bill with a more open mind. I think that I have said enough to show that we sincerely believe that it should not be allowed to reach the Statute Book before it has been radically improved in very important ways.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Like the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), I support the Bill's objectives, because this wide-scale evasion is a scandal. The hon. Gentleman is probably more accurate about its extent than my right hon. Friend, because my right hon. Friend gave facts which he can prove, while the hon. Gentleman gave facts which, though not provable, are obvious from the numbers of sets one sees being sold.
I would like my right hon. Friend to look carefully at enforcement. I agree that there should be enforcement, with much more severe penalties, and chat his method should be adopted if there is no alternative. I can see difficulties, however, and I am not speaking on behalf of the manufacturers, sellers or hirers of sets. If a certain form of taxation is law, citizens should see that everyone pays. Anyone who dodges the tax is a criminal, because he is robbing the State. If the hon. Gentleman saw someone breaking into the Treasury to rob the till, he would be the first to inform. Equally, these people are robbing the Treasury.
But this method will not be the complete answer. There are many different sets of different dwellings. Three or four members of a family may live in the same house in different flats and rooms. A family might have one, two or three sets. Do they all pay for the licence? Obviously, to be fair, if father has bought the main set, but the daughter also has one, she should also pay—

Mr. Bryan: One per household.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but in one household there may be different flats and rooms. Under this system, enforcement will be difficult.
Another question is: what is a dealer? The hon. Gentleman asked what happened to all the millions of sets manufactured since 1954. Not all have been destroyed. Hundreds of sets change hands in street markets. Are these people licensed television dealers? They are here today and gone tomorrow and have hundreds of these sets.
When I mentioned the vehicle excise duty when I interrupted the hon. Gentleman, I pointed out that this is an analogous case. Road fund licences are already issued under a similar system. Every vehicle is licensed and has a registration number and the owner is registered with the local authority. At least, he should be, but is he? Hundreds of thousands of people drive cars, vans and orries which are not registered. The police, the Ministry of Transport and the Home Office know of this, but nothing is done. The appropriate authority will say that they know of the practice, but do not know who were the last regis-

tered owners. This could happen with television sets.
Let us take an example. I might own a car which I register when new and have a log book in my name. I then sell it to Bill Smith—

Mr. John Smith: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lewis: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—let us say that I sell it to George Brown.
George Brown, being an honourable chap, then notifies the local authority of the change of ownership and that is all right. Two or three years later, the same vehicle changes hands again. This time, George Brown does not trouble to notify nor does the new owner, the local authority does not bother to find out, and the vehicle is lost. This is a matter not of £5, but of £17 10s. a year, and, for a heavy lorry, as much as £175. When the appropriate authorities are notified, they say that there are so many thousands of these now that they cannot bother to enforce the law. Even if this recording and registration were applied, there will be a hundred and one different ways of dodging it.
Unless my right hon. Friend can find a foolproof method of ensuring that television sets are licensed annually, trace will be lost of a great number of sets. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will examine all methods that may be suggested to him of reaching as near a perfect solution to this problem as possible.
Reference has been made to Japanese and other imported walkie-talkie sets. I trust that it is realised that there are various types of this instrument. There are the juvenile or childish types which one can buy for a couple of pounds and which are designed mainly for children. There are also the more useful and expensive instruments which many businessmen have found indispensable for increasing productivity and for greater safety.
It should be realised that, for example, in the building industry lives can be saved by the use of walkie-talkie sets. They permit a ready form of communication to be maintained. They are also helpful in protecting valuables and cash in factories, stores and so on. Many of the


nationally known companies of security forces use these walkie-talkie sets and some of the smaller firms also employ various systems of communication.
I will not broadcast these activities, lest crooks get to hear of them. Suffice to mention that by the use of an appropriate intercom system, a factory or business is contracted at pre-arranged times. If a reply from the person in the factory is not received, the police are telephoned, because something is obviously wrong. This is often done by the use of walkie-talkie equipment and I trust that this will be borne in mind in our further consideration of the Bill.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will carefully examine any representations that he may receive from people who use walkie-talkies. As I have explained, there are many ways in which these instruments can be used to great advantage. It is well known that they are used in hospitals. They are even used in the Palace of Westminster. They have an important rôle to play in industry, particularly for ensuring greater safety, efficiency and productive output.
I am sure that the Postmaster-General will not act as though he has a vested interest, by saying, "Let these people have a proper telephone system". Many businessmen have found that the walkie-talkie type of intercom unit provides the perfect medium for their needs and it would be wrong, if they find the walkie-talkie cheaper and more efficient, to oblige them to use a different system. I hope, therefore, that when my right hon. Friend receives representations on this matter he will examine them carefully and will, perhaps, allocate certain frequencies on which the legitimate types of walkie-talkie apparatus may be used, whether they be of Japanese or British manufacture.
I also hope that in Committee my right hon. Friend will do his best to accept as many Amendments as possible, even though his advisers may not be enamoured with them. In other words, I urge him not to set his mind against manufacturers and others in industry, but to judge each Amendment on its merits.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: The first part of the Bill,

with which I expressly intend to deal, is extremely obnoxious. It turns television dealers into informers and unpaid civil servants and others of us into snoopers. It will further undermine people's sense of moral obligation and it will convert the feeling that one ought to pay into a feeling that it is up to them to collect.
I am sure that the Government would have avoided introducing such a disagreeable Measure if they thought that they could avoid it. However, have they thought about it hard enough? Part I—and Clause 8, which deals with wireless sets in motor cars—is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of a television licence. This impression of mine was reinforced as I listened to the speech of the Postmaster-General.
What is a television licence for? It is not like a firearm certificate, which is a way of keeping track of or limiting the use of something dangerous. Nor is it like a motor car licence, which is partly an economic regulator which can be used to adjust the economy. Nor, again, is it like a motor car licence in the sense that it is something to be paid only when the object is in use. People do not lay up their "tellies" in the winter. The television licence is simply a way of paying for the programmes and nothing more.
But is this the best way of paying for television programmes? Television licences are historically an extension of wireless licences, which were introduced in the days when quite a proportion of listeners made their own sets. If one wanted to make listeners pay for their programmes, a licence was the only way of ensuring payment. Nowadays nobody makes his own television set—and if he does, then the best of British luck to him and I suggest that we can safely present him with £5 for using it.
We must ask whether a licence is the best way of collecting this money. I believe that it is not. Licence systems are expensive to administer. This one costs at least £3½ million a year. A licensing system is justified only when the State wishes to control the use of something or to charge for it only when it is actually in use, like a building used as a public house.
The ordinary way for the state to raise money is by means of a tax, and there is already a tax, Purchase Tax, on television


sets. No ferocious Measures are being introduced to enforce the payment of Purchase Tax on television sets. The Purchase Tax system works perfectly well and to impose a second, totally different, tax on television sets—and, moreover, a tax which is expensive to collect and difficult to enforce—seems wholly unnecessary. Why have two taxes when one will do'? I suggest, therefore, that television sets should be taxed once only—at birth. The revenue at present raised from licences should, in future, be raised from a supplement to the existing Purchase Tax on television sets. This principle, by the way, could be extended to ordinary wireless sets, with which I do not intend to deal now.
How would it work out in practice? Television licences raise approximately £65 million net from 14 million licences covering 16 million sets. I have arrived at these figures by asking people in the trade, and they are much the same figures as those which the Postmaster-General gave. New sets sold reached a peak of nearly 2 million in 1964. Of course, the number has gone down under this Government. But if one assumes that 1·6 million sets are sold each year, on average, arid that almost all of them are replacements rather than an expansion of the market—the expansion of the market might represent something of the order of 100,000 sets a year—a television set would seem now, rather surprisingly, to have a life of getting on for 10 years. It appears from doing this sum over several years past that the life of a television set lately has increased slightly.
To work out the additional Purchase Tax necessary to abolish television licences, one can either divide the net annual revenue from licences by the average number of new sets purchased each year, or, if one wants to show off, one can discount 9 or 10 years' licence fees at the average Government borrowing rate. It so happens that both methods produce approximately the same result, namely, that additional Purchase Tax of the order of £30 on each new set would be necessary permanently to abolish television licences altogether, even if the B.B.C. received no supplementary income from any new source.
Of course, £30 sounds a lot, but the great majority of television sets are hired or bought on hire purchase, and such

a payment would therefore be spread over the life of the set, thus costing the viewer less than the present licence. In addition, £30 is not a large sum when compared with the £300-odd which colour television sets will cost.
To avoid upsetting the manufacturers and the market in new television sets, I suggest that the change should be made by stages and that new television sets should be subject to a Purchase Tax supplement increasing in each of the next 5 or 10 years as the television licence is progressively reduced in price and finally abolished. That would in fact stimulate sales of television sets since, on the analogy of the good old Land Commission, people would be anxious to replace their sets before the tax went up.
Unlike the present Measure, these proposals would cost nothing to administer, being simply part of the Purchase Tax system, and would be quite impossible to avoid. It would, therefore, save £15 million per annum—just under £5 million in the cost of the licence system and the policing system now proposed, and £10 million in unpaid licence fees.
By eliminating totally the dodgers, it should lower the cost of viewing for the honest. By taxing the set rather than the household—our present system to my mind is a rather charming Victorian concept like the household vote—where a household has more than one set, it will subsidise others who are less well off or who live alone. Such people will be helped in another way as well, since they tend to keep their sets longer or to buy rather older ones, and, because the licence component in the price varies with the price of second-hand sets, the effective cost of the licence will go down as the value or price of the set runs down. It will also help hirers by spreading the licence payment over the year. At one go, £5 can be quite a wallop. Therefore, in a small way my suggestion is a social measure as well as a financial economy.
Instead of passing this ferocious Measure and before setting out once again on the dreary round of legislation, administration, evasion, detection, confiscation, in this case, and punishment, can we not consider this elementary suggestion which will spare the Postmaster-General's Department from a very disagreeable and unpopular task? In the course of his speech, the right hon.


Gentleman mentioned 30,000 prosecutions a year, detector vans, postal combing, which sounds a most undesirable practice, lists and apparatus and a backlog of 2 million cases. All that can be avoided, it will help keep down the mounting tangle of legislation and bureaucracy, and, into the bargain, it will save the taxpayer £15 million a year.

5.6 p.m.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: On the face of it, and having listened to the speeches which we have heard so far, the Bill appears to me to be a very sensible piece of legislation, and certainly I want to support it. However, I must ask for some assurances. I have very good reason for doing so, as I shall explain shortly.
I hope that it will be possible to compel everyone who has a television set to obtain a licence. The present cost of a licence is £5 a year, which works out at less than 2s. a week. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) reminded us, that £5 is a lot of money to put down in one sum for people with small incomes. In spite of that, it is deplorable that so many people evade the payment. We have been told today by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General that the estimated loss of revenue is in the region of £12 million a year.
The information which has been given to us about the evasion of licence payments is not news. For some considerable time, it has been suggested in the Press that there are many who fail to pay the licence fee, and a couple of years ago a constituent of mine, Mr. Stanley Rhodes, of West Ardsley, having read these reports in the Press and being a public-spirited gentleman, gave thought to the problem and had what he thought to be a bright idea. He wrote to the then Postmaster-General putting forward his ideas. I wish that he had written to me, but, instead, he chose to write direct to the Postmaster-General, as he had every right to do. Mr. Rhodes' letter was dated 18th February, 1965, and he said in it:
For some time I have been trying to work out a scheme which would successfully defeat the large number of people who are using television and wireless sets without ever

taking out a broadcast receiving licence, thus robbing the Post Office of revenue.
He went on to say:
I know, of course, that the Post Office have detector vans in operation, which to my mind get really nowhere near the root of the problem. May I therefore, Sir, respectfully recommend the following ideas to you, which I feel convinced would prevent this leakage of revenue. Introduce legislation binding all retailers or wholesalers who sell directly to the public, either on loan, hire purchase, or outright sale, to notify the local registration office covering their particular district of the transaction, giving the make of set, serial number, name and address of purchaser, including loan or hire purchase. People who already have sets and have no licence will be caught when a change of set or a new set is taken out. Eventually, when it is universally known that the licensing authority will he notified of their having a set installed, people will take out their licence quickly, rather than risk the inevitable visit from the licensing authority, who will, naturally, be waiting for the link-up between notification from the seller and the licence receipt from the Post Office.
I suggest that these ideas of my constituent are the very ones which are incorporated in the present Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General of that time acknowledged receipt of the letter. He wrote in his own handwriting on a postcard:
This is just an acknowledgment. My staff are looking into the points you raised, and they will be getting into touch with you direct as soon as possible.
My constituent received a reply dated 3rd March, 1965. I should add that it is clear that the Postmaster-General received my constituent's letter, as he acknowledged it and bears responsibility for the reply.
The reply reads:
I would assure you that we are in no way complacent about the problem of evasion and that we make every effort, through publicity and inquiries to persuade people who should have licences to take them out and bring to account those who fail to do so.
The proposal that dealers should provide the Post Office with the names and addresses of their customers had been considered before, but has not been adopted because of the practical difficulties involved and because the necessary legislation would be of a controversial nature. The suggested procedure would place a considerable burden on the radio and television trade and it would be difficult to ensure that dealers met their new obligations.
Quite apart from the controversial nature of the legislation that would be required, the practical difficulties involved in the schemes


of dealer co-operation on the lines you suggest would be formidable.
If such arrangements were made compulsory an army of inspectors would be required to check dealers' records. It would be found that the great majority of wireless and television sets now being sold are replacements for sets in respect of which licences are already held and a vast amount of fruitless time would be spent on checking licence records only to find that new sets were already covered by existing licences.
Finally, a dealer scheme would not bite into the existing body of evaders and the existing anti-evasion measures would have to continue side by side with a dealer scheme for many years to come. The cost of all this would be prohibitive.
While, therefore, we are not in a position to adopt your proposal, I am grateful for the interest you have taken in the matter.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What was the date of that letter?

Dr. Broughton: The date is 3rd March, 1965.
My constituent was disappointed at the rejection of his ideas, but he accepted with good grace the opinion given to him. The House can well imagine his astonishment when, in less than two years, my right hon. Friend the present Postmaster-General announced those very measures that had been so forthrightly rejected being brought into operation. He immediately saw me and showed me the correspondence. In view of what I have revealed to the House, I think that the House will require some firm assurances that the objections raised two years ago are now completely dispelled.
I need not dwell on the fear that this legislation would be of a controversial nature, but what about
a considerable burden on the radio and television trade"?
What about the difficulty
to ensure that dealers met their new obligations
and the practical difficulties of dealer cooperation being "formidable"? Has my right hon. Friend had full and satisfactory consultations with the trade? Has he met personally the dealers' representatives?

Mr. Edward Short: I said that I had.

Dr. Broughton: Can we be assured that these problems do not now exist? What about "an army of inspectors" to "check dealers' records"? Will that be necessary? If so, are dealers aware of it and what is to be the cost? What about the

vast amount of fruitless time … spent on checking licence records"?
Is that opinion still held? If so, does it mean many more Post Office staff? What about the cost being "prohibitive"?
I am not happy about the financial effects of the Bill as stated in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. It is said that
The sum due to the Postmaster General for discharging his functions under the Bill and for performing more work under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 in consequence of the Bill is expected to be in the order of £100,000 per annum.
Can we be quite sure that in less than two years' time my right hon. Friend will not have to come to the House and inform us that although he expected the sum to be about £100,000 he finds that it is much more?
The Memorandum goes on to say:
Ultimately the Ministry of Transport will incur, under Clause 8 of the Bill, expenses that cannot now be estimated.
That certainly is a very vague amount of money. It also says:
Under present agreements with the B.B.C. both these amounts will be offset by adjustment of the amount granted to the B.B.C. in respect of their Home Services.
That is very good as far as it goes, but is it not possible that before long the B.B.C. will be asking for another and different agreement because it finds that the heavy expenses incurred are so very great that it is unable to afford them?
These are all questions and doubts I have after, having learned the views held by the Postmaster-General of two years ago. I hope that my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General will give careful consideration to them and that satisfactory answers will be forthcoming, because I want these measures to be successful in eradicating the dishonesty of evading the payment for television licences.

5.19 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: It is a great pleasure to be able to rise from this bench to give an unqualified welcome to a Measure emanating from the Postmaster-General, as so often recently I have had to say that we were reluctantly prepared to acquiesce in certain measures he was about to take which might have been avoided had other action been taken. On this occasion we have no particular


reservations beyond the fact that we would like to have seen measures of this kind taken earlier.
I seem destined to follow the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) in our debates. The last time I followed him was in the debate on drug addiction. This time it is in a debate on addiction of a somewhat different kind, television. If he will forgive me, I shall leave his remarks for the moment and return to them later, because I, too, have a constituent who writes letters on this subject and we have that experience in common.
I am sure we all agree that licence fees, if we have to have licence fees, must be collected. I would not join issue with the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) in his arithmetical abstractions as to the extent of the present defalcation, whether it be £10 million or more than that. I would at least agree that it is a considerable sum which should be collected. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in his other qualifications as to whether a licence fee is the right way of paying for television.
This point, among others, was taken up by the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith). I did not agree with some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He made the somewhat naÏve suggestion that, if any punitive arrangements were introduced to penalise those who did not pay up promptly and voluntarily, they would merely be made resentful and would not pay up at all, that they would then adopt the attitude, "It is somebody else's job to come and get the money from me". However, I agree that we must give more thought to what is or what is not the best way of paying for radio and television broadcasting.
The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster made the suggestion—this is a suggestion I have not previously considered and therefore I should not like to comment on it, but t is worthy of consideration—that further finance might be obtained from the Purchase Tax on sets, thus avoiding the necessity for a licence fee.
There are many ways of approaching the matter. I would imagine that there are hon. Members opposite who look forward to the day when television is so

universal that it is in everybody's home and should, therefore, be regarded as a public service and that payment for it should come out of general taxation. Perhaps such hon. Members have a point, but I doubt whether that stage has yet arrived. Other hon. Members might feel that some arrangement such as pay-T.V., in some form not yet devised, would be a better method of raising the money. Unfortunately, this would relate only to the quantity of television which was being listened to and not in any sense to the quality. What would be important would be to find a method of extracting a contribution from the ordinary viewer or listener which is directly related to programme content in a qualitative sense rather than in a purely quantitative sense.
However, I will now leave these metaphysical abstractions, which I am sure the Postmaster-General himself shares. I believe that he, too, is not wholly satisfied with a licence fee as the only way of paying for radio and television.

Mr. David Weitzman: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that consideration might be given to a payment for those who have to watch and listen to television?

Dr. Winstanley: I am not sure that we should pursue at the moment the question whether a person should pay to escape from watching television. That is a rather different approach from the present one. If we have licence arrangements, which is what we have at the moment, clearly effective steps must be taken to make them work. There are difficulties. Some of them were outlined by the hon. Member for Howden and the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). I hope that the Postmaster-General will consider some of these difficulties. Most of them are Committee points.
I did not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Howden that this was the time when more money should be poured into the provision of detector vans. When we are embarking on a Measure of this kind, this is precisely the wrong time to spend more money on providing detector vans. If the arrangements envisaged by the Postmaster-General in the Bill are to be effective, I hope that they will in time replace detector vans.
At the moment, detector vans are not very economic. My calculations, which the Postmaster-General may dispute, suggest that the present cost of an individual detector van is such that its work each week must result in 20 new licence fees for it to be a paying proposition. This is clearly a field in which the law of diminishing returns must ultimately operate. I am not against the use of detector vans. They have done a very useful job, but this is hardly the time to spend money on providing more of them. We should now turn our efforts and endeavours into making this procedure effective.
Much has been said about the attitude of dealers. The Postmaster-General said that he had consultations with those involved in the trade and that they were quite happy to operate these measures. Sometimes the representatives of a trade are quite prepared to say that they are happy to operate measures, knowing full well that it will not be they who will be operating them but that it will be their employees in individual businesses.
I have recently taken' the opportunity of discussing with retailers and with those who would actually do the job what might be involved and whether this would cause any difficulty. I asked them whether they personally, as ordinary individuals, working in individual firms, would be happy to operate measures such as these. On every occasion I was told that they would have no objection whatsoever to this kind of arrangement and that they would not regard it as in any way imposing on them a burden which could not easily be shouldered. I am now talking about those who would have to do the work, rather than with the heads of the companies with whom the Postmaster-General may have spoken.
Perhaps this would not have been the right place for the Postmaster-General to have done it, but there are still certain anomalies relating to the liability for television licences which should be ironed out. I am thinking of certain old people's homes, certain quasi-hospital type institutions in which perhaps only one resident has a television and other residents watch it. In many places there are disputes as to on whom the liability for the licence fee rests. I know that in certain hospitals there are arrangements whereby a television set is provided.
I entirely accept that the Postmaster-General Department's at the moment has to function in a commercially viable way. I would not, nor would any other hon. Member, ask the right hon. Gentleman to operate in the field of social security. But it is necessary that he should have discussions with the Minister of Social Security about what contra-payment arrangements can be made for the provision of sets in certain hospitals, old people's homes, and so on. I assure him that there are, at present, difficulties which result in arguments as to who should pay the licence fee, whether the institution should pay it or whether one individual should pay it. If an individual pays it, the argument then arises as to how he can recover some of the money he has spent on the licence fee from his fellow patients who watch the programmes. However, this is a small point and I will not weary the House with it further.
I was delighted that in general terms the hon. Member for Bowden gave a welcome to these measures. I agree with some of his reservations and with some of his suggestions. I have been looking at some correspondence which has been placed in my hands. I now come to the point made by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley. The hon. Gentleman was very proud of his far-sighted constituent, who, two years ago, suggested that these procedures should be adopted.
I make no criticism of the good people of Batley and Morley, but the fact remains that it is now 12 years since a very public-spirited citizen by the name of Mr. Eric R. Lubbock, who then resided at Penn Lane House, Melbourne, Derby, but who, I understand, has since removed to Orpington, wrote to his Member of Parliament, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker), suggesting precisely such an arrangement as that which is envisaged in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Derby, South passed this interesting suggestion on to the appropriate quarter, which was the then Conservative Postmaster-General, Lord De La Warr, who replied in these terms:
We have already thought about the kind of scheme Mr. Lubbock suggests but, like many of the other ideas we have examined, it would lead us into difficulties. In the first place, as he says in his letter, it would need fresh legislation"—


that would be awful, would it not?—
it would place new legal obligations on numbers of people and there would be new penalties for infringements and a great many officials needed for checking and enforcing it. Even then, what could a dealer do if you or I borrowed a neighbour's licence and showed it to him? We are very interested in the general idea that radio dealers might be able to help us, but what we should like to do is to have the help of dealers without at the same time having a lot of new laws and 'controls'. We are, in fact, consulting the major interests concerned to see what can be done within the present laws".
They were consulting then, in 1955, and they did not leave office till 1964. That is the inevitability of gradualness, with a vengeance.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Could the Mr. Lubbock there mentioned find out who the Postmaster-General was? Who was the Postmaster-General then?

Dr. Winstanley: I have said that the letter came from the then Postmaster-General, Lord De La Warr. I mention the matter merely to join with the hon. Member for Batley and Morley in showing that this is no new idea. I do not wish to say that his constituent was anteceded by many years, but it is true that the idea had been in many people's minds for a long time. I am very glad that the Postmaster-General has at last brought forward legislation to implement it. It is a sensible arrangement.
If we are to have licence fees, they must be enforced. There is no handicap, hardship or difficulty for the ordinary law-abiding citizen who is prepared to pay his whack, and there is no difficulty for the ordinary trader in commerce or industry who is prepared to assist, as most of them are. This is necessary legislation. It will fill a gap which has needed filling for the 12 years since my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) originally made the suggestion.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. George Wallace: One or two hon. Members have declared an interest today, a financial interest, presumably, but I shall declare an interest which is not financial. I have a deep, close and personal interest in amateur radio.
I welcome Part I of the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend on reaching agreement with the trade, but, as

he knows, I and a good number of other people have strong reservations about Part II and Clause 7 in particular. I have told my right hon. Friend of this, and, with his usual courtesy and promptness, he has given me a detailed reply, but it does not quite meet the case.
I accept that Orders made under Clause 7 can be challenged and, as regards importation or sale of complete, assembled apparatus, I see no great difficulty or hardship resulting, but I am seriously concerned about the possible effect on home constructors, by which I mean people who are authorised licensed radio amateurs. I know very well that this is an expensive hobby. A good many amateurs get the equipment which they need for their experimental work by the conversion of Government surplus equipment.
Another way—I recommend hon. Members to take a closer interest in their local radio clubs—is by junk sales at which surplus equipment from one amateur is put up for auction and bought by another, so that the club benefits, the amateurs benefit, and everyone is happy. Also, there is a famous street in London, Lisle Street—called the "street of streets"—where amateurs from all over the world go to get the bits and pieces of equipment needed to carry out their useful and often vitally important experiments.
I have declared my interest, but I am not a radio amateur, or "ham", myself. This was a frustrated ambition of my youth. Now, happily for me, my son has realised that ambition and, through him, I have come into close and regular personal contact with this dedicated band of enthusiasts and their organisation, the Radio Society of Great Britain.
I make no apology for dealing with this matter at length because I believe that it is time that the House and the country recognised the value of the work which these dedicated and enthusiastic people do. They are linked together in friendly enthusiasm, irrespective of class, colour or creed. Christian names are common among them, and they certainly have no class or language barriers. More than that, there is a bond of international friendship among them going right throughout the world. In travelling abroad on my Parliamentary duties, I have found that my link with a radio "ham" in my own country has given


me a passport, and I have had a welcome wherever I have gone simply because I am relayed to a radio "ham". This is all something of which we should be proud.

Mr. Edward Short: My hon. Friend is pushing at an open door. I want to do everything I possibly can to encourage these people. All these provisions are aimed at is apparatus which interferes with other apparatus either because the frequency is wrong or because the apparatus is of substandard construction.

Mr. Wallace: I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance, and I hope that, by the end of the day, I shall be happier still in the knowledge that he has realised the seriousness of the situation as it affects home constructors.
These people are doing really useful work. As my right hon. Friend knows, the Geneva Radio Regulations of 1959 gave the definition of amateur service as
a service of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried on by amateurs, that is, by duly authorised persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest".
Part II of the Bill gives power to prohibit the manufacture or construction of any type of radio apparatus, and there is no limitation as to type. I appreciate that Orders will be brought in, but the only restriction is that an Order banning any equipment must be related to "interference", a term which has not been defined and which is capable of wide interpretation. As has already been said by the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), quoting from the Radio Society's Bulletin, any type of equipment which contains an ocillator could possibly cause interference in some circumstances, and this would, therefore, include many types of test equipment and experimental apparatus constructed by amateurs in pursuance of their hobby. The amateur must construct his test equipment because, in order to go out or the right frequency and avoid breaching regulations, he must test before he transmits.
Over many years, apparatus developed by amateurs has subsequently been used by the Forces, by industry and in other fields. It is recognised that the work of amateurs during the International Geophysical year and the International Year of the Quiet Sun has been invaluable.
The Bill gives power to my right hon. Friend and his Department to prohibit the use of apparatus constructed from component parts. I quote here from Clause 7(7):
For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that in this section the expression 'manufacture' includes construction by any method and the assembly of component parts.
This is the core of my argument and objection. I am certain that an adjustment can be made. I do not think that the question of handheld equipment will present a serious problem, but, in considering the question of interference, we should not forget that radio amateurs are already strictly controlled by regulations. In 1965, the proportion of cases of alleged interference from amateur transmitting stations was less than 0·01 per cent. of the total number of interference complaints received by the G.P.O. The House will realise that these are responsible people indeed.
I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the provisions covering home construction. The real value of the work which these people do lies in the construction of their own apparatus. This construction and experimentation very often yield developments of value to the trade, to industry and to civilisation generally. Valuable research is done by people who, because they have no financial interest, I suppose, are regarded as amateurs. My right hon. Friend must not be too annoyed with me, because he knows that I am deeply concerned about this. He and his Department have close working relations with the amateurs' organisation, the Radio Society of Great Britain, and I am sure that those relations will continue. They regard him as a good Postmaster-General, but they are worried about the effect of the Bill when there is a different Postmaster-General.
It would be a logical and helpful step to exempt from the provisions of the Bill all licensed amateurs, if not wholly then at least from the provisions relating to home construction. I hope that it will he realised that here is a mistake. I should be very grateful if this could be considered and a suitable Amendment introduced in Committee.

Mr. Edward Short: Anything which is licensed will be excluded by definition, because the provision does not apply to


anything we can licence. We do not licence anything that would cause interference.

Mr. Wallace: In that case, a radio amateur duly licensed could go to any supplier and purchase components or equipment on the production of his licence. That would avoid any difficulty and eradicate all the fears of the amateurs at present.

Mr. Short: If it is a piece of apparatus which we would licence now we shall licence it in the future. What we want to stop is principally the import of cheap walkie-talkie sets from Japan and their manufacture here, sets on the wrong frequency which we cannot license and which cause interference with other people. That is what we want to get at.

Mr. Wallace: I am still not quite happy. That is all right when one is purchasing complete gear—I hope that I shall be excused if that is the wrong word to use. But does this apply to home-constructed apparatus? That is the point.

5.42 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: On intervening in this rather technical argument, may I say, first, that I am President of the Hire Purchase Trade Association, which is one of the bodies that formed the consortium to deal with the Government in this matter. However, anything that I say is not said in that capacity, but is said to express my own feelings about the Bill.
First, it is essential to realise that a tremendous amount of work is put on firms, many of them small, which adds to their paper work and staff requirements. While it is accepted in general that it would be proper to support the Biil, it is necessary to say a word of warning because the loading on to firms of P.A.Y.E., redundancy payments, and all sorts of other payments with all sorts of records and paper work should be discouraged, and should not be required unless it is absolutely essential.
The consortium that has discussed the matter feels that—with a certain exception which I shall mention in a moment—there has been a most helpful arrangement, on the one side, I hope, by the

members of the consortium and on the other by the right hon. Gentleman's advisers. But I am not entirely certain that there is not an alternative penalty of imprisonment under Clause 11, which deals with punishment. It seems to me a poor repayment for the help that has been given in this matter by the dealers that they should be held responsible if they fail to keep adequate records, or, more usually, if one of their servants fails to do so, and that there will be in any event a fine of up to £50 for the first offence and up to £100 for the second.
It might well happen that with all the requirements that are forced from day to day on those who have very little knowledge of these complications something would be missed, and there would then be a punishment which I think would he completely inappropriate. The punishment to be given to a person who uses an unlicensed set should be infinitely greater than that provided in the Bill for anybody who has failed to keep the records. Some may not agree with me on that, for it is a matter of opinion.
But a question of principle arises concerning seizure of sets for non-payment of licence fees. For the first time, seizure is widened to the extent that it does not matter to whom the set may belong—a very serious step which the House should realise. It is true that the question of unlicensed goods has been dealt with by the Customs and Excise in certain cases, although it was doubtful whether the goods belonged to the individual who is at fault. But in Scotland a little time ago doubt was thrown on whether goods belonging to A could be seized to punish B.
Clause 11(4) talks about the forfeiture of unlicensed apparatus
… notwithstanding that it is not the property of the person by whom the offence giving rise to the forfeiture was committed,…
In other words, the Bill seeks to operate on the wrong man. It is true that the Postmaster-General, of whom we all think a great deal, says that he will dispose of this in accordance with the terms of the Bill, and in a manner satisfactory to those concerned. That may be his view and his understanding but I suggest that this is a long way from establishing the legal position.

Mr. Weitzman: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would deal with the situation which would arise if, say, a television set was the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, and there was only one outstanding payment on it so that the ownership remained in the hiring company? Does he say that this would not apply? Would not the assurance given by my right hon. Friend be the best way of dealing with it?

Sir E. Errington: I dare say there is something in that, but there is something in the other situation, where it may well be that only one payment has been made. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows the legal complications which have to be dealt with between a hire-purchase company, or a rental company, and a hirer when a question of forfeiture arises. Certain technical legal difficulties may arise about rights, but generally speaking the law should operate in such a way that it is fair to the people concerned.
Another complication which we have to consider is that a finance house will have to become a dealer. Under certain circumstances, a finance house will have to do its own collections, and if it does direct collections it will have to register as a dealer. We may well arrive at the situation in which A, the dealer, or the finance house, will be requested to inform the Postmaster-General about the purchase of a set so that he, the right hon. Gentleman, can forfeit it from B, the hirer. The set will be the security for the advance of money by A, and we will, therefore, be asking him to deprive himself of such security as that set provides.
I ask the Postmaster-General to consider this matter very seriously. The consortium to which I have referred is a powerful one, and the members of it have discussed these issues with the right hon. Gentleman's advisers. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his statement that he is not prepared to deliver a set to the true owner, even though that person is completely guiltless—because the true owner in these cases must be the hire-purchase company or the finance house—and in addition has helped in the forfeiture of his own property.
The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) knows how difficult it is in the legal world to quote a statement

by the Minister in the hope that the matter will be dealt with on the basis of it. The law must appear as a Clause in the Bill, and it is a simple matter to frame a provision to meet the situation to which I have referred. All that I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to do at the moment is to keep an open mind on this matter, because what he said today is of no value at all in a court of law. It has a personal value because we know that the right hon. Gentleman would not let us down, but this is not the point at issue. If a set is forfeited, there may have to be a ruling by a legal body to decide what should happen to it.
People who have discussed these issues realise the importance of them. They are anxious that the proposals in the Bill should go through, but they ask that the decision at which the Postmaster-General has arrived should be incorporated in the Bill, and I hope that in Committee a suitable Amendment will be put forward to do this.
My plea is for good legislation and for an appreciation of what has been done by the trades generally. This includes the hire-purchase trade, and the dealers in wireless sets and I submit that their needs should be given favourable consideration.

5.56 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller: It is always a pleasure to speak in the same debate as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). He and I are in the same honourable profession, and although we are not learned gentlemen I believe that we are qualified gentlemen.
It was interesting to hear the similarity between the parts of the letter which the hon. Gentleman read and the letter read by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton). It is gratifying to know that in the House we have a Member who specifically set about coming here in order to have his proposals accepted.
It is regrettable that we are discussing a matter which appears to be a further encroachment on the freedom of people, but I think it is necessary to recognise that, although the methods proposed in the Bill may be disagreeable, one often has to use disagreeable methods to deal with disagreeable people.
I welcome the Bill. It is a pleasant change to discuss a Measure which will bring in money without any increase in taxation.
I think that there is much to be said for the view put forward by the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) that there are more than 2 million licence dodgers. I cannot imagine that 7 million sets have been destroyed since 1954. I would put the figure of dodgers at nearly 4 million, and not 2 million.
What is the alternative to collecting this money? What is the alternative to doing what the Bill proposes to do? It is more than 30 years since television began in this country and far too many people are now illegally opting out of their obligations to pay their licence fee.
I share the concern of those who say that the wireless amateur is worthy of consideration. The wireless amateur is sometimes used in various kinds of research, and my right hon. Friend's assurance has gone at any rate a long way to meet some of the concern.
My right hon. Friend alluded to the importation of walkie-talkie sets from Japan. I am not concerned about where they come from, but I am concerned that the Government should look to the future, because while it may be true that the present kind of apparatus interferes with channels, apparatus which does not do so may be evolved. With a Bill of this kind we might make it impossible for all time to use new apparatus without the defects of the present apparatus. Walkie-talkie sets could be used by industry, or at political rallies, and there seems to be a contemporary use for some kind of intercommunication, and I ask my right hon. Friend not to close his mind to the possibility of apparatus coming on to the market in future and not having the defects of the present apparatus.
The hon. Member for Howden asked what the B.B.C. licence would have been now if the Labour Party had won the 1951 election and commercial television had not been brought in. He spoke as though the public received commercial television free. Everyone knows that the public pays through the nose for every piece of commercial viewing. On balance it would not have done us any harm to have foregone the doubtful pleasure of

commercial television, but I will not pursue that topic.
The punishing of the trader instead of the offender by confiscation of the apparatus may seem harsh, but there is no viable alternative. Responsibility must rest on the supplier, who must ensure that his risk is as slight as possible.
In my experience it is strange to have a Bill which applies to Northern Ireland. This is a welcome change. If Northern Ireland Members do not object, I may be led into believing that there is something sinister about the Bill. I wait to hear what any Northern Ireland Member has to say on that subject.
It will be seem that it is not without certain misgivings that I feel that the Bill should be welcomed. It is necessary to put a stop to the almost wholesale evasion of the public duty of paying the television licence fee. While it is regrettable that steps have to be taken which appear to be a reduction of freedom, there seems to be little alternative, and I commend my right hon. Friend for bringing forward the Bill.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I welcome the Bill, because the Postmaster-General undoubtedly has to face up to this problem. At present more than 2 million people are not paying the licence fee, which means that every other viewer has to pay about 12s. of his licence fee to make up for those who do not pay. Certainly the B.B.C.'s finances can do with the injection of £10 million or more revenue which these measures should bring in eventually.
Some other alternatives have been suggested for dealing with the problem, but I believe that the Bill is at least a reasonable compromise and probably the best compromise which could be put before the House. Of course we recognise that it will require much help from the dealers and The Times of 10th March put it very well in its editorial which said:
But considering the extent and the demoralising effects of the present evasion the demands being made upon them"—
that is, the dealers—
are not excessive.
That summarised the position very well.
I notice that the Bill does not make any effort other than increasing penalties


to get in extra licence revenue for radios other than car radios. Does the Post Office feel that there is not a tremendous amount of evasion of sound radio licences, or that the number would not be sufficient to make practicable an extension to radio sets of the notification procedure envisaged in the Bill for television sets?
What the Postmaster-General appears to have said about the amnesty is that if a person buys a television licence now, there will be no questions asked, but I thought that he also implied that no questions would be asked even if such a person bought a licence in the future. The alternative proposition might have been put—that up to a certain date, say 1st January, 1968, anyone coming forward in the period of amnesty would not be the subject of inquiries, but that after that date there would be certain queries on the form. Operating that system as against a deadline could be of useful assistance in encouraging reluctant payers to come forward.
As I read the 1949 legislation as amended by the Bill there seems to be no question of any term of imprisonment being imposed as a penalty, but I should like a clear assurance on that.
1 understand that the cost of these measures will be about £100,000 a year. Can the Assistant Postmaster-General give some details about how that sum is made up? Will it all be required for additional staff? If so, I calculate that that would mean about 100 extra civil servants. May we also have some advice about whether this £100,000 a year is to be an initial cost for three or four years, then tapering off after the scheme gets into operation?
Those are a few questions to which I would appreciate replies. There are many other matters which can be raised in Standing Committee. On the whole, I believe that the Bill as such is to be welcomed.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I too would like to say just a few words in support of this Bill. I listened with very great interest to the clear exposition made by my right hon. Friend of the details of the Bill. As a good Socialist, I always

look with suspicion at any attempt to make inroads into the freedom of the individual. This is a cardinal principle of Socialism, and as one approaches this Bill one looks to see whether the inroad that is clearly made now into the freedom of traders in keeping their records and so on is justified.
The problem is serious. My right hon. Friend has explained the enormous amount of evasion, something like £10 million a year. The figures that he gave were queried by other hon. Members, and it was suggested that the actual total was even higher. Whatever the figure may be, it is an extremely large sum of money, and something must be done to deal with the problem. A number of alternatives were put forward, but looking at them I should have thought that on the face of it, the Government's proposal is the best and most appropriate.
I listened with interest to the letters read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). Apparently something like this present scheme was put forward as long as 12 years ago, and rejected. I can only say that we have a jolly good Postmaster-General, who has looked into the matter closely and come to the conclusion that this scheme can be put into effect.
The Financial Memorandum said that the expense would be about £100,000. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will give some figures to justify this amount. It may be a bit more, but if it is, and even if it involves the appointment of a number of civil servants or officers, to see that enforcement is properly carried out, if we are to save £10 million, then all of this is justified.
I looked with a little diffidence, as a number of my hon. Friends have done, at the provisions in Clause 7. Quite frankly, the Government ought to look carefully into this question of what is called in the Clause "certain apparatus". This may be a clog on useful development. I want to refer to forfeiture under Clause 11. There is a great deal in the point that if the set belongs to a hiring company then it is a little hard on it that a forfeiture should be made, depriving that company of its property when it has done no wrong.
On the other hand, I agree that rather heavy weather is made of this because Clause 11(5) says that:
Apparatus may be ordered to be forfeited.
and therefore it is presumably for the court to go into the matter. I gave an instance in an intervention, of a case where perhaps one instalment was due to the hiring company. In that case it may be thought that it should be forfeited. On the other hand, it may be quite early on, when the property in the set is vested in the company to a considerable extent. Then it would be wrong to forfeit that set to the Postmaster-General.
The words are:
Apparatus may be … forfeited
and presumably the court will go into the facts and make a just Order. This is a point of great importance, and we ought to look into it, to see if it needs to be amended in some way. The Government are making a real approach to this problem, and I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading and proceed to the Statute Book as quickly as possible.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: May I follow what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has been saying about "certain apparatus" as defined in Clause 7. I have had a submission, made by a constituent of mine, on behalf of 12,000 holders of amateur transmitting licences. He is very anxious about the possible effects of Clause 7, and the whole of Part II upon a considerable body of people, who are doing quite useful work.
I would like to read one or two sentences out of the letter, because my constituent puts the matter better than I could, in describing exactly what his anxieties are. He says:
I understand that Part II of the Bill refers to 'Restriction of manufacture or importation of certain apparatus' and under this heading the Postmaster-General would, if the Bill becomes law, be empowered to prohibit the purchase or manufacture, whether for sale or not, of specified apparatus related to 'interference'. This could logically be extended to include any form of receiving, test or transmitting equipment containing an oscillator. It is apparent that not only would one be pro-

hibited from buying 'specified apparatus' but also from building it …
A little further on he says:
… it is most vital to me, and my many fellow radio amateurs, who are authorised to employ transmitting equipment, that everything possible should be done to prevent the Bill from becoming law in its present form.
I hope that the Postmaster-General will give this representation consideration, and take notice that at a suitable stage there may be some Amendments to deal with the matter, if an adequate answer is not given.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: This debate has ranged wider than might have been expected. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), suggested the winding-up of the licensing system and a complete recasting of revenue for broadcasting. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) gave us a tantalisingly brief excursion into political philosophy and the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), produced a surprisingly alarming doctrine, if I understood him aright, that all men are the tax collectors of their neighbours, or that they should be. I do not know whether he meant that, but it is a doctrine which we would repudiate, and which, I dare say, the Postmaster-General would, too.
The debate has chiefly revolved around Part I of the Bill, but before coming to that I should like to deal with two matters which have been touched on dealing with Part II. The first refers to Clause 7. As the Postmaster-General already knows, many amateur radio enthusiasts are very concerned about this Clause, and the very wide powers that it appears to give to the Post Office. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) gave most effective voice to those fears.
I think that I am right in saying that there are about 25,000 amateur sound licences in existence, and the holders of these licences have played a very honourable and useful part in the development of broadcasting. It is important that their views and interests should be heeded. The Postmaster-General gave an assurance and has said that he wants to help these people, but they are worried by the provisions of the Bill. We should


like to know the answer to the final question put by the hon. Member for Norwich, North: what is the position of the home constructors? This is a Clause that should be probed in Committee and discussed very closely. Perhaps its provisions ought to be narrowed.
The second bit of Part II to which I want to refer deals with the forfeiture powers in Clause 11, which we find open to the strongest objections, because we fail to see what possible grounds there can be for the set being forfeited when it belongs to an innocent party, and when an offence has been committed by someone to whom the set does not belong. It seems to us that that is quite wrong. Either the Postmaster-General will not use such a power, in which case he does not need it, or if he does wish to use such a power we do not think that he should have it.
The right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance. He said that in normal circumstances he would return the set to the true owner. We accept what he says. But that does not bind his successors, and we think that he was wrong in refusing to write that assurance into the Bill. The law which we pass should be certain. This is a matter of law and not of discretion. The Bill deals chiefly with evasion, and the right hon. Gentleman should not try to evade his own law. His personal assurances are all right as far as they go, but they do not bind his successors. This is rather a sloppy way of legislating. What the Postmaster-General means should be written into the Statute.

Mr. Weitzman: It is a matter of discretion, because the court may not order forfeiture to the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Gilmour: That is a different point. I understood the Postmaster-General to say that when forfeiture had been ordered he would return the set to its rightful owner if he thought it right to do so. I am concerned with what he said about what would happen after forfeiture had taken place.

Mr. Weitzman: Clause 11(4) provides that the
Apparatus may be ordered to be forfeited.
Surely that is a matter for the court.

Mr. Gilmour: This is a difference in the time scale. The set having been for-

feited, the Postmaster-General gave an undertaking to return it in normal circumstances to its rightful owner. I do not think that the hon. and learned Member was present when this exchange took place. We trust the Postmaster-General entirely, but we feel that this undertaking should be written into the Bill. We are basically in agreement. I am talking about an executive matter, whereas the hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about an earlier judicial stage.
We are fully in sympathy with the objectives of Part II of the Bill. There have been some very cogent criticisms of the licence system, but as long as that system persists plainly it is utterly wrong that the law-abiding majority should have to subsidise the law-breaking minority. Although we sympathise with the Government's objectives, we are not in full agreement with the methods which have been chosen for their attainment.
The Government are right to increase the penalties. At the moment, the penalty is the equivalent of two years' non-purchase of a licence. If anybody avoids buying a licence for two years, he cannot lose. Even if he is caught after one year, he loses only the equivalent of one year's licence. That is far too low. Whereas in the past we have criticised the Postmaster-General's attitude to the principles of English law, we think that he is absolutely right in this matter.
There are two ways to bring the law into disrepute. The first is to create a whole new set of offences which people do not believe to be offences, and that is something which Socialist Governments are prone to do. The second way is to lay down a penalty which is so mild as almost to encourage people to commit the offence. That has been the case with television licences. The increase in the penalties and the publicity which has been attached to it are all to the good and seem bound to cut down the extent of the evasion.
In the week after the new penalties were announced, the number of licences issued in the eastern district of the London area went up from 425 to 2,621, which is a very satisfactory increase. That was a better rate of increase than was achieved elsewhere, but there were some almost equally spectacular increases elsewhere. The increased penalties are liable


to be particularly efficacious when used in conjunction with detector vans. The campaign in Southend, which I hope we shall hear more about, was evidently very successful.
The Postmaster-General recently said that he would double the number of detector vans from six to 12. Now we understand that the number is to go up to 20. Since the right hon. Gentleman is more than doubling the number of detector vans, it will be possible for the detector van campaigns to become more widespread. The mere threat of a detector van seems to be extremely efficacious, apart from the good done by the sweep through the town by the detector van. It is against this background of increased penalties for evasion and a doubling or trebling of the use of detector vans that the other measures proposed in this part of the Bill must be viewed.
It is axiomatic that anything which increases the amount of Government paper in circulation—other than money, of course—is highly undesirable until the contrary is proved. The invention of paper is generally thought to have marked a great advance in civilisation. This is no longer true. The effect has been long in coming, but paper may well be the death of civilisation. There should be an anti-proliferation treaty between the Government and the people against forms, circulars and all the rest of the bureaucratic paraphernalia.

Dr. Winstanley: What about the Spectator?

Mr. Gilmour: The Spectator is not a Government paper, and I do not think that even the Liberal Party conference has suggested the nationalisation of the Press. That is outside the sphere of the argument.
On any view, Part I of the Bill would bring forth a notable amount of paper. First, there has to be a register of all television dealers. Then every transaction involving a television set during the year has to be recorded in detail. All this will add up to great corridors of paper and will, I imagine, increase the number of civil servants. I do not know whether it will produce the army of inspectors to which the Post Office referred in its letter to the constituent of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), in 1965—perhaps the Assis-

tant Postmaster-General will tell us about that—but it will certainly add to the army of civil servants, which has been mounting under the Labour Government. There is no question of keeping that army steady at 1964 figures or any other bogus, botched-up figure. The number has already risen by 44,000. This Bill is bound to give it another fillip.
On the face of it, therefore, Part I is undesirable, and viewed against the increased penalties and detector vans it is probably unnecessary. Those two measures can probably do the job without the very dubious aid of all this paper.
The Post Office and the Postmaster-General's predecessors evidently thought that the scheme was undesirable and would not work as recently as 1965. The rental companies object to becoming the assistants of law enforcement, and the retrospective details which they will have to supply will involve a great deal of work. As the hon. Member for West Ham, North pointed out, in spite of all this paper and additional civil servants, there will not be much effect on evasion. As with motor cars, there may well be a lot of getting round these provisions.
I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will tell us exactly how this enormous mountain of paper will be used, because a lot of the lists will be out of date before they reach the Post Office. I hope that we may be told exactly what function they will perform and in what way they will be superior to the present methods used by the Post Office against evasion.
There is also a general point against Part I of the Bill. Already, every transaction in land has to be notified to the Land Commission, where, again, a newly recruited army of civil servants has just begun their recording programme. It seems almost certain that very soon every wage agreement will have to be notified to the Department of Economic Affairs, the Treasury, or some other body, and duly and gravely recorded there. Now, every transaction, involving the disposal of a television set will have to be notified.
Where is it to stop? There is considerable whiff of Big Brotherdom about this compulsory reporting of private transactions to the Government. It is a tendency that must be watched. We believe that, in the absence of compelling arguments to the contrary, it is an undesirable


development. At the very least the onus of proof in favour of this Part of the Bill rests very heavily upon the Postmaster-General, and I do not believe that he has discharged that onus.
The problem of evasion may be solved by other methods. The Postmaster-General himself pointed out that the dealers' associations had suggested to him that Part 1 should be postponed until it was seen whether the other measures were working. We believe that to be the correct attitude. The Postmaster-General mentioned the possibility, but rejected it. It is fair to say that he did not argue against it, but merely asserted that it was not acceptable to him. It does not seem to me to be a matter of assertion but something more than open to argument.
On the basis of probability and of the attitude of the Post Office in 1965, we must ask the right hon. Gentleman to think about this point again very seriously to see whether he cannot meet our general objections—and those I think, of some hon. Members opposite—and those of the trade, before he starts to work this great bureaucratic paraphernalia, we ask him to see whether the other parts of the Bill are not doing the job we all want them to do. Meanwhile, although we object to Part I, we agree with the Bill's general objectives, and will give the Measure an unopposed Second Reading.

6.34 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that we have no cause for dissatisfaction with this debate. There has been general recognition of the need for stern measures to put an end to licence evasion, which is now of scandalous proportions; and of the need to deal with the other matters mentioned in the Bill. There has been constructive comment which I have no doubt my right hon. Friend will be ready to consider in Committee.
The hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) and his colleagues—and the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), to whom we have just listened—have acknowledged the need for action, but have not felt able to give unqualified support to the measures proposed by the Government. They have argued, as is their right, that the Bill is too elaborate and too burdensome.
I have listened with great attention to the suggestions that have been made, but I would remind the House that licence evasion is not a new problem. It did not come into being overnight in October, 1964. Hon. Members opposite had a good many years in which to ponder the problem, and even though that did not lead to any action, I had hoped that their ideas today on how the problem should he tackled would be worth listening to. I have been disappointed.
The hon. Member for Howden suggested that the cost of television licence evasion is greater than the £10 million referred to by my right hon. Friend. The figure of 2 million evaders is derived by subtracting from the estimate made by Television Audience Measurement Limited of 16 million private homes in January, our figure for the number of licence holders in that month—14 million. The Television Audience Measurement Limited, figures are derived from a very large sample, and I am advised that the results are statistically valid. The figure of 2 million may be a slight understatement, because our figures include licence holders other than private owners—such as public houses—but I am sure that it is of the right order. The important point is that if the figure was too small, the Bill would be all the more essential.
The hon. Member for Howden also suggested that the effect of increased penalties and the existing Post Office counter-evasion measures should be enough without putting new burdens on dealers, and the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central followed up that line of thought by saying that the effect of those measures should be tried before adopting the other provisions in the Bill.
My right hon. Friend has said that this was a view put to him very strongly by deputations from the trade associations and that he gave it very careful consideration, but with evasion on its present scale he felt bound to come to the conclusion that, while the higher penalties were important, it was essential also to take measures that would leave evaders in no doubt that, although they might have been lucky in the past they could not expect to get away with it any longer; that not only must there be an effective penalty for the evader who is caught,


but that the evader must expect to be caught.
The existing methods used by the Post Office keep track of most people who use television sets, but 2 million evaders are still getting by and I can see no alternative to seeking information from the dealers—

Mr. Bryan: I did not for a moment say that present Post Office methods were adequate for the purpose. I was suggesting a development of the Post Office's present resources, and saying that, now that we have seen the effect of the detector vans, a multiplication of these vehicles could be effective. I agree that present methods have not yet succeeded.

Mr. Slater: This is where we disagree. It has not been so much the effect of the detector vans but the publication of this Bill that has brought to the notice of the general public the Government's attitude towards television licence evasion.

Mr. Bryan: But 3,000 licences were taken out in four days at Southend. That was not because of the Bill. When the vans arrived in Southend, 3,000 people took out licences in four days. I should have thought that was the effect of the vans.

Mr. Slater: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. That increase coincided with the Bill. The Bill has had a serious effect on television licence evaders. I shall in due course, deal with Southend, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will restrain his impulses until then.
As I was saying, the Post Office's existing methods keep track of most people who use television sets. My right hon. Friend has told the House that in 1966 we brought no fewer than 30,000 prosecutions against evaders—double the number five years earlier. I do not mention this figure with any satisfaction. It is not so much that we want to take people to court, but that we want them to face up to their liabilities when they purchase a television set. We want them then to act in accordance with the law as laid down, which other people follow to the very letter.
I will give some measure of the scale of the problem. It is hardest in the great conurbations, where the population turnover is as high as 10 per cent., or even

more, per annum. This means that we lose track of existing licence holders almost as often as we add new ones to the list. This is where the Bill will be of great help.
The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly cited the Southend experiment. He claims it as evidence that the present measures available to the Post Office are good enough to deal with the problem and that the wider use of detector cars should be considered. But he fails to recognise that the experiment was an intensive campaign which was limited to one locality and that all the stops were pulled out. It would be quite beyond our resources to reproduce the same method in every locality where there is evasion and to maintain this pressure week in and week out.
The hon. Gentleman also inquired about the cost of detector cars. The capital cost of a car and its equipment is about £3,000 and the annual running cost is about £7,500. These are not large sums in relation to the amount being lost by evasion, but, as I have said, the detector cars are only one element in the campaign. If the hon. Gentleman considers the matter realistically, I am sure that he will recognise that detector cars alone are not the solution.

Mr. Lubbock: In the letter which the then Postmaster-General wrote 12 years ago, which has been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), the cost of operating a detector car was put as being £45 a week, which works out at slightly over £2,000 a year. Is the hon. Gentleman now telling us that the cost of operating a detector car has gone up to £7,500 in 12 years?

Mr. Slater: I am talking about total costs—maintenance and running costs and everything else. These figures have been handed to me by the Department.
The hon. Member for Howden said that what he called "snooping" was objectionable in principle. What we have to keep in mind is that we are confronted with a widespread breach of the law which costs licence holders a great deal of money. The information to be asked for under the Bill is needed to protect the interests of the great majority against an irresponsible minority and I believe that most people will accept the need for it.
The hon. Gentleman also made a good deal of play of the fact that the dealer will be required to record and give the Post Office s-x items of information about each transaction. I do not think that this will be a very onerous requirement. These items of information are those which, in the main, dealers need to record for their own purpose and a carbon copy of their record could well be provided for the Post Office. When the hon. Gentleman talks about 12 months being allowed for the provision of this information, I think that he is confusing it with the time that is to be allowed for the provision of information about rental agreements already existing when the Bill comes into force.
The hon. Gentleman also questioned whether the licence system was the best way of financing broadcasting. I do not think that anyone would claim that there are no difficulties about the method of financing at present, but, as in many other matters, its virtues become more apparent when one looks at the alternatives. No doubt it was this sort of comparison that led the Conservative Government, when they granted the B.B.C. its current Licence and Agreement in 1963, to maintain the system which has operated for the last 45 years in preference to the alternatives which have been put forward today.
What are the alternatives? First, we have the proposition that the licence system should be done away with and broadcasting financed by direct Government subvention. The argument for such a change s that it would save a substantial sum at present spent on administering and enforcing the licence system as well as render unnecessary the further measures proposed in the Bill. The second argument is that the burden of cost would fall more equitably on the public as a whole, since, as the number of households with television grows, the licence fee takes on increasingly the nature of a regressive tax.
My right hon. Friend is not unsympathetic to these arguments but there are other factors which must be weighed. First, as the White Paper on Broadcasting said, a Government subvention would be liable to expose the B.B.C. to financial control in such detail as would prove incompatible with its independence. Secondly, money would have to be found

from general taxation and the sums that we are talking about are running at the rate of about £75 million a year. No doubt there would be suggestions as to where this new tax burden should fall but I doubt whether there would be any general consensus.
The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) suggested that broadcasting might be financed by Purchase Tax on the sale of radio and television sets. This is not a practical proposition. It has been investigated. If broadcasting had been financed in this way during 1966 and 1967, it would have called for a tax of about £60 on each television set sold during the period.
The hon. Member for Howden suggested that the licence system might be modified by requiring each ratepayer to make a declaration as to whether he had a television set or not and, if he had, to pay his licence fee to the rating authority. I cannot see how this would help. In the first place, ratepayers and households cannot be equated. Secondly, we should need to verify claims for exemption just as now we check on those who do not take out licences. Under his proposals, it would presumably be an offence if a householder without a set refused to claim exemption. That is not attractive to me. Altogether, I cannot see any advantage in the idea.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) asked my right hon. Friend to consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security on the question of licences for sets in old people's homes and similar establishments. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is giving every consideration to that. The hon. Member can take that for granted.
Perhaps I can deal briefly with two points raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills). The reason why the Bill does not extend the measures proposed in Part I to radio sets is that television licence evasion is the big problem which loses £10 million a year. The extent of evasion with radio sets is inevitably far smaller and the Post Office's existing anti-evasion measures are all that is required to tackle that problem.
The hon. Gentleman also asked for a breakdown of the £100,000 which the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum


says will be the additional cost of the bill. The approximate breakdown is: administration, £20,000; postage, £25,000; licence inquiry work, £20,000; issue of licences, £15,000; records and reminders, £20,000.
The important point here is that the measures in the Bill do not, in the main, represent a new activity for the Post Office but the means of directing its present activities more purposefully. As my right hon. Friend has explained, the present method of detecting evasion depends in the first place on checking a list of all households against the licence records. What we shall now be able to do, from the information that we get under the Bill, is to compare our licence records with a list of households with television sets and this will take us more directly to the heart of the problem.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Can the hon. Gentleman then confirm that there is no provision in these figures for the employment of additional civil servants?

Mr. Slater: If extra staff is involved, I expect it to be very little.
Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the provisions regarding forfeiture. These do not apply only to television receivers, but will apply also to transmitting apparatus for illicit broadcasting. However, I recognise that a point of some concern is that they would apply to television sets on rental or hire purchase, forfeiture of which would penalise the rental or hire company rather than the users. My right hon. Friend has explained why the Bill has been drafted in this way. He has also given an assurance that forfeited sets would normally be returned to the company which owned them. Nevertheless, he has noted the views expressed and will give full weight to them.
There have been inquiries about the provisions for auction of television sets. Clause 6 provides that auction sales shall not be subject to the requirements for notification and so on unless the auctioneer is acting as principal. The purpose of this provision is, of course, to avoid making every auctioneer who may sell a television set as part of a sale of household effects register as a television dealer and comply with the Bills other requirements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) asked about the scope of the powers in Clause 7 and particularly how they would affect radio amateurs. I know that the representative body of the radio amateurs has expressed similar misgivings in its bulletin, but I believe that these anxieties are groundless. I hope my hon. Friend will not mind my saying that he has given insufficient weight to Clause 7(1), which limits the application of the powers to cases in which it appears expedient to my right hon. Friend to invoke them to prevent or reduce risk of interference.
It is already open to my right hon. Friend to refuse a licence for apparatus which causes undue interference and to prosecute anyone who uses it without a licence. Clause 7 seeks to ensure, as far as possible, that apparatus which my right hon. Friend is not prepared to license does not come on to the market so that unwitting purchasers find, after they have spent their money, that they cannot get a licence for the apparatus and are liable to prosecution if they use it without one. We are essentially concerned to offer a measure of consumer protection to such purchasers, but also—this is very important—to protect unauthorised users, including radio amateurs, from apparatus which my right hon. Friend cannot license but which is difficult to track down.
Post Office officials are in touch with the Radio Society of Great Britain, which represents the radio amateurs. I understand that the discussions have already gone some way to allay their misgivings. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend has noted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North and that he will give them full weight in Committee.
Every consideration will be given to the points raised when the report is published. Whatever we can do to improve the Bill in seeking to outlaw and do away with this evasion, we shall try to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable the Postmaster-General to obtain information as to the sale and hire of television receiving sets, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under section 3(2) of the Post Office Act 1961 and section 22(1)(b) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

AGRICULTURE BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

6.56 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move, That the Lords Amendments be now considered.
If I might crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say how sad I am that our old friend, Tom Williams, the Minister of Agriculture who brought in the 1947 Act, did not live to see this day. He was enormously friendly and kind-hearted and I owe a lot to him. I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary for many years and I know that his work for agriculture will be long remembered.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 9.—(POWERS TO MEET FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES.)

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 10, line 30, at end insert:
Provided that no provision having compulsory effect shall come into force before the expiration of five years after the coming into force of this section.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
We had a long discussion on Clause 9 which, as the House will know, provides for the Meat and Livestock Commission, subject to Ministerial approval, to develop schemes which are conducive to the proper organisation, development or regulation of any section of the livestock products industries. Any scheme submitted would first have to pass through all the procedures and safeguards laid down in Clause 2 and Schedule 2. We debated this considerably. If the Minister approved the scheme, it would be subject to an affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
The Amendment would prevent any provision for a development scheme for the compulsory rationalisation or concentration of a section of the industry from taking effect until five years after


the Bill had been enacted and the Section came into force. It will come as no surprise to those who have followed our many debates on Clause 9 to hear me ask the House not to accept the Amendment.
The Clause includes wide powers, but they are properly safeguarded and can be used only as the Clause provides, for the industry's improvement. Of course, we have looked at this again, but I am not prepared to rule out the possibility that these powers will be needed before five years has elapsed. However, the Commission must be able to cope with every eventuality. After all, the industry is developing rapidly. Changes are taking place in the methods used and in the structure of the industry, from the farm to the retail shop. New problems are bound to emerge as these changes occur.
The Bill specifically provides for the Commission to perform all the functions for which there is a case at present, but we must also give the Commission some room to adapt its functions to changing circumstances. I emphasise that, at this stage, we cannot assert that no changes in the Commission's rôle will be necessary before the middle of 1972.
The Amendment would, if accepted, substantially weaken the legislative provisions which enable the Commission to deal with future developments. It would weaken it unnecessarily because these reserve powers are so hedged around with safeguards that they will not be used—during the first five years or at any other time—unless the case for using them has been properly made out.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I disagreed with everything but the opening remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. However, I very much agreed with his reference to Tom Williams. My hon. Friends retain affectionate memories of Tom Williams and of all he did and sought to do for agriculture. We were very glad that the Minister took this opportunity to pay tribute to him. We endorse his remarks.
Tom Williams was essentially a reasonable man. I believe that had this Amendment been put to him in the way in which it was put in another place he would have realised the value of this com-

promise and would not have adopted the arrogant and arbitrary action of the Government in this matter.
We have discussed this issue for many months, in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House. We have pointed out to the Minister that the powers contained in Clause 9 are not necessary at all, let alone after a lapse of five years. Noble Lords in another place took a tolerant view in suggesting that the Commission should try to work without these powers for five years.
It is fantastic that the Minister has rejected the olive branch which has been held out by another place in regard to this most obnoxious Clause. The right hon. Gentleman's arguments were almost incredible. He said that the powers of compulsion—and they are powers of compulsion in every respect; compulsion even for restricting or closing down undertakings—were needed, but although we have asked him time and again why he needs them, he has not once given us the answer. He merely says that they are subject to the restrictions contained in Schedule 2—and that, he believes, makes them perfectly respectable.
The Government's attitude towards the Amendment is indicative of their attitude to so many things. Only yesterday a Minister was claiming that he needed compulsory powers, not because he wanted to use them but because he wanted them as a method of obtaining agreement until compulsion became necessary. The same argument is being used in this context. The Government feel so unsure of themselves that they must have compulsion behind them. It is fantastic that these compulsory powers should have been clung to by the Minister in spite of the reasonable arguments my hon. Friends and I have adduced against them right from the inception of the Bill, remembering that our discussions have been going on for a long time.
We have reminded the Minister of the dangers in having these powers. The right hon. Gentleman has never justified them and although, in another place, our noble Friends have taken the view that the Commission should be given an opportunity to show what it can do by persuasion, that view is now to be rejected out of hand. I find it difficult to understand this arrogant attitude on the


part of the right hon. Gentleman, particularly since in another place Lord Walston, in resisting this proposal, dwelt on the reasonableness, as he called it, of the Commission and said:
One would have thought that the Livestock Commission, instead of being a body of reasonable people set up to promote the efficiency of the livestock industry in all its aspects, with the object ultimately of giving the consumer better quality at lower price, and thereby helping the producer to get a better living … a body with strictly limited powers … was an autocratic, dictatorial and completely autonomous body …
The noble Lord was developing his argument to show that he was referring to reasonable people. If they are as reasonable as he claims, can it be said that within five years of being set up, with the enormous problems that will confront them, they will want to start using autocratic, dictatorial powers? Surely in that time they will not have developed sufficient powers of persuasion in this complex industry. The Government are indeed adopting an extraordinary attitude.
The Minister is wrong to say that the powers in the Clause are subject to a great deal of checking in various ways. They are subject to checks by the Minister, but not to adequate check by Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were subject to an Affirmative Resolution. That is true, but such a Resolution must be accepted or rejected in toto. If the Minister brings forward something Which he thinks is satisfactory, but which my hon. Friends feel is tolerable, with certain reservations, we will be unable to amend the Minister's proposal. We will be presented with a blanket position which we must either accept or reject. In this connection, Lord Walston said:
… subject, in this particular instance at least, to the very detailed control of the appropriate Ministers and of Parliament itself …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 6th March, 1967; Vol. 280, c. 1239.]
That is not true, because although whatever is proposed may be subject to the detailed control of the Minister, it will not, for the reasons I have given, be subject to the detailed control of Parliament itself.
I do not understand why the Minister has dug his toes in over this matter. Right from the start he has insisted that these compulsory powers are necessary. Time and again we have asked him to give the

purposes for which they are likely to be required during the early years of the Commission's operations, but we have had no answer. The right hon. Gentleman says that he needs these reserve powers for the Commission. Why should it be necessary to compel? After all, the purpose of the Clause is stated to be to meet future developments in the industry for livestock and livestock products. Why is compulsion necessary in this matter? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Commission will be unable to encourage alone? Has he so little confidence in its powers of persuasion?
When we first examined the Bill we said that the Clause was obnoxious and we sought to delete it. Our colleagues in another place have adopted a more conciliatory attitude and have suggested that the Commission be given an opportunity to build itself up so that we may ascertain its position—then, after five years, these powers of compulsion would come into force. But even this reasonable attitude is not sufficient for the Minister. His decision in this matter represents an indictment of the whole attitude of the Government. We deplore it and will vote against this obnoxious Motion.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: May I, first, join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) in paying tribute to the late Tom Williams, and perhaps quote one of his utterances, which is appropriate at this moment. I remember that he once said that Governments go when they are pushed and that they are like wheelbarrows. That remark is capable of two interpretations. To get action out of the Government requires considerable pushing all too often, but sometimes dismissal of a Government requires even more—

Mr. Peart: Take off the wheel.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I can only suppose that the Government have come to the conclusion that the House should disagree with the Lords in this Amendment as a result of having realised that no longer can they hope to persuade the people. The county council elections have taught them that, and they have decided to resort to methods of compulsion.
It is worth recalling that, under Clause 2 of the Bill, the Meat and Livestock


Commission is given fairly clear instructions. If, for example, as a result of its exercising its powers, there might be a substantial effect on the interests of persons engaged in the production of livestock, the Commission has to consult the Production Committee. If the Commission's action is likely to have a substantial effect on the interests of persons engaged in the marketing or distribution of livestock, it has to consult the Distribution Committee. If it appears to the Commission—[Interruption.] I can understand the Government's anxiety. What I am trying to show is that if the Commission were to exercise its powers under Clause 9 and any of these effects were likely to flow from its doing so, in certain cases it has to consult the Production Committee, in other cases it has to consult the Distribution Committee, and if the Commission does anything which is likely to have a substantial effect on the interests of consumers, it has to consult the Consumers Committee.
If it is to fulfil this rôle—[Interruption.] The Minister had better listen—

Mr. Peart: rose—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman when he has listened—

Mr. Peart: I am listening.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I will give way to him when I have made my point. If, in the exercise of any of the compulsory powers under Clause 9, its action is likely to have an effect either on production, distribution, or consumption, the Commission is under an obligation to consult the appropriate committee, be it the production Committee, the Distribution Committee, or the Consumers Committee.
I should have thought that that, necessarily, would require a considerable time for a proper assessment to be made of the effect of the use of the compulsory powers under Clause 9; yet the Minister is trying to deny to producers particularly a right which Government after Government have insisted upon whenever they have held a majority in the House, and that is five years in which to fulfil their programme.
The Minister is saying that at the moment the Commission takes unto itself powers under this Clause and tries to

eliminate excess capacity, to reduce the number of undertakings engaged or gives permission for new undertakings or the relocation of existing ones to take place, there shall be nothing like the length of time which a Government require to do their business. This has to come into force immediately.
Either the Minister thinks that time for consultation is required, or that whatever the Commission decides should come into force at once. He does not challenge anything in Clause 2, which gives time for consultation with the various committees which are set up, but he says in Clause 9 that their Lordships were wrong in trying to insist that producers should be given five years in which to be persuaded that what the Commission was proposing was right.
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to give way, I will do so now.

Mr. Peart: It is too long and involved.

7.15 p.m.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: If the Minister thinks that this is too long and involved, it is all the more reason why we on this side should vote against the Motion. This is typical of the Labour Party when it has a setback, be it minor or major. The first reaction of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is to become dictatorial.
By his attitude, the Minister is showing beyond doubt, especially in view of his recent interruption, that in his mind the Commission has always to be right and that the interests of those who are to be eliminated as having provided excess capacity are not to be considered.

Mr. Peart: I am not saying that the Commission must always be right. That is why we have the safeguard. I had assumed that the hon. Gentleman had read the Bill and our discussions carefully. There is a Parliamentary safeguard, and he will see that that is in the Bill, as it stands.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I know that there is a Parliamentary safeguard, but the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the difficulty which we are always under when we try to exercise Parliamentary safeguards. We are told by the Government of the day that the legislative programme does not permit of discussion of it.
I am thinking of my constituents, those of my right hon. and hon. Friends and, may I say, of some hon. Gentlemen opposite who have not taken the trouble to turn up for this debate. I am thinking of people who are trying to produce meat for the consumption of the British people.
The Minister's attitude on their Lordships' Amendment shows that he does not consider that someone who is likely to be put out of business by the Meat and Livestock Commission should be given time to be persuaded that what the Commission is trying to do is right. It is thoroughly undemocratic. This is a tyrannical trend which is all too typical of Labour Party policy on agriculture and other subjects which we detest so heartily.

Sir Frank Pearson: This Bill, like the poor, seems always to be with us. It is now two years and some months since it was first introduced into the House. It has been debated at length in Committee, and through all its stages we have been urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that speed is of the essence and that it is essential in the interests of British farmers that no delay should take place. As a result, we hurried on and we collaborated with him. We allowed him to have the most contentious Clauses with the minimum of debate. I remember on one occasion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is a little far from the Amendment on the Order Paper.

Sir F. Pearson: I shall certainly obey your instruction, Sir. I had considered that just a little background information before we got to the meat of it would not be altogether out of place, because it has a certain relevance to the arguments that I wish to develop.
The point I wish to establish initially is the question of speed in the passage of the Bill. That has certain reference to the delaying power for five years, which is linked with this Amendment. The Bill is an important Measure which is to be rushed through the House. We were asked to take it in one long night's debate

which could have been spread over a number of days. It has since been considered in their Lordships' House over a period in which many useful and valuable Amendments were introduced. So far as we can tell, they are to be accepted by the Minister. We can therefore say that the length of debate has improved this important Measure.
I was extremely disappointed, however, when the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that this, probably the most important Amendment before us today, was to be rejected by him. It was rejected in an extremely cavalier fashion. Not one single sound reason was adduced for not accepting this Amendment.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Now that the hon. Member is speaking about sound reason, can he say whether there was one instance in legislative history when compulsory powers were brought in by an Act and delayed for five years?

Sir F. Pearson: With their reforming zeal, I should not have thought that hon. Members opposite would fear to break new ground. We are extremely glad to hear the voice of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), the only back-bench hon. Member whom the Minister has been able to encourage to come here this afternoon. The more that he intervenes the happier that I shall be to sit down.

Mr. Bert Hazell: I hope the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) recognises that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North is also in his place.

Sir F. Pearson: I am extremely glad that that fact has been drawn to our notice. We hope that the hon. Member will enlighten our debate with his deep knowledge and will try to ensure that, in this great meat industry, we achieve a measure of fairness and justice, which I am certain the Minister himself would wish to achieve. The atmosphere in recent days has changed substantially from the atmosphere in which we debated this Bill in Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Amendment, which is concerned with postponement of compulsory powers for five years.

Sir F. Pearson: I shall try to keep to the Amendment. May I say briefly that the atmosphere has changed in recent days—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Briefly or not, the hon. Member must keep to the Amendment.

Sir F. Pearson: The Amendment is proposed to the second part of Clause 9. I do not think the House recognises how wide Clause 9(2) is and just what this Amendment is trying to achieve. I remind the House of the basic bare bones of subsection (2). It lays down the conditions under which a development scheme may be introduced for the reorganisation of the meat industry and the meat processing industry, but it does not confine itself to the meat industry and the meat processing industry. It also extends to the meat production industry. Any farmer producing beef on a livestock basis comes within the purview of this Clause. Under subsection (2,a)—[Interruption.] If any hon. Member has any objections to make I shall be grateful if he will do so now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. The hon. Member is perfectly right about subsection (2) but he is not addressing himself to the Amendment, at least in the remarks he has made so far.

Sir F. Pearson: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall try to confine myself to the Amendment. I wish to develop an argument in regard to the delay of five years which is based on certain words in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not objecting to the hon. Member mentioning those paragraphs, but I ask him to link that with the Amendment.

Sir F. Pearson: Subsection (2,a) lays down
provisions for compelling or encouraging the elimination of excess capacity
which may be the subject of a development order. Surely the first function the Commission has to perform is to pursue the question of whether it can pursue its object of rationalising the industry by encouraging it. Before it can do that it has to have a complete survey of what the industry is, what it is about and what the individual units of production will be.
It is to this point that I wish to link the Amendment. There can be no valid reason why we should not legislate for a five-year delay. Is it reasonable to suppose that we can set up the Commission and the sub-committees and that those sub-committees can survey the industry and see what functions are being performed, and by what units, and then come to their decision as to what parts of the industry should be eliminated in less time? When we think of what elimination of a part of the industry means in human terms we realise that it can mean telling an individual producer that he has to cease production. It can mean cutting off a man's livelihood and telling an individual producer of livestock that he may no longer go on producing that livestock. These are very serious powers.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the word "comjielling" comes before the word "encouraging"? The phrase is, "compelling or encouraging". Does he not read some significance in this order of words in the remarks he is making?

Sir F. Pearson: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I would much rather see the provision the other way round, but that is not the way in which the Bill has been drawn. Even if the Bill may be subjected to slightly faulty drafting, in actual practice the first thing that will happen will be a survey of the situation. That will take time. Then the process of encouragement will follow, we hope. I cannot believe that this is not going to take five years. Therefore, if the intentions of the Minister in this regard are as honest as he tried to make them out to be, I cannot see that he would lose anything in accepting this five-year period of delay. It would quieten a great number of fears which people at present justifiably hold about the operation of part of this Clause.
In paragraph (b) there is the phrase,
compelling or encouraging a reduction in the number of undertakings".
The whole of an undertaking could be wiped out under these provisions. Again, it is not unreasonable to suggest that there should be delay in the operation of the compulsory provision. The House could reasonably have asked that a very much more detailed justification should


have been given this afternoon for the reasons why the Minister is not accepting this Amendment. Not a single valid reason has been given. In voting against his rejection of the Amendment, as I sincerely hope we shall at the end of this debate, we on this side of the House will be able to feel that we have not only the whole of the agricultural industry behind us but also the largest part of the manufacturing industry and all who wish to stand up for the reasonable rights and freedom of the individual.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: A trend has crept into the debate which I do not like. On the Government benches there is a girls school end-of-termish feeling about the Bill. Every time anyone from this side makes a valid and powerful point, it is met with squawks of laughter from the other side. This leads me to believe that the Whips are really on and that whatever we on this side say will have little impact. I hope that this is not so, because this is an important and useful Amendment.
The Minister's speech was one of the most disappointing he has made in the whole long, dreary course of the passage of the Bill. He did not refer to the other functions the Commission will have when it is finally set up. The Commission has an enormous amount of work to do. The functions other than the compulsory powers of the Commission are based on the Report of the Verdon Smith Committee. Part I of Schedule 1, almost three pages of it, set out the functions of the Commission, among which are:
assessing the breeding qualities of livestock … promoting or undertaking performance testing, and progeny testing
which are vast projects—
Giving advice and information to those owning, conducting or using livestock auction markets
and supplying information about market situations, etc.
These are tremendous jobs which the Commission must do. It has enough to do in the first five years of its life without trying to shut down and close up and change the structure of the livestock industry and the livestock products industry, without starting on these swingeing and pernicious tasks.
The Minister said that new problems will emerge as changes occur. When the

Commission starts going through its functions, which are based on the Report of the Verdon Smith Committee, all sorts of new implications will occur. I repeat that the Commission will have quite enough to do in the first four years of its life without meddling in all these strong and unnecessary powers which are being taken.
We on this side would not mind so much if we knew what these powers were to be used for. The attitude of the Minister and his colleagues during the passage of the Bill has disheartened me probably more than anything else that I have witnessed in the short time I have been in the House. The Minister has given no reason for needing these powers. He has not told us why he needs to do all these sweeping things which could make such a radical change in the livestock and livestock products industries. He has not told us why he needs to eliminate excess capacity. He has not told us why he needs to compel a reduction in the number of undertakings. If we knew this, we could regard these powers with a great deal more charity.
I said in Committee that the Minister was taking power for power's sake. I repeat that. His attitude tonight has shown that he is more intent on the power than with what the power should be used for. Unless the Minister is prepared to be more specific, we should not accept this power. Has the Minister read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Swinton, in another place, in which the noble Lord said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What the noble Lord, Lord Swinton, said in another place, if it was about this Bill, cannot be quoted now.

Mr. Jopling: I beg your pardon, Sir.
Perhaps I could ask the Minister to consider what I now suggest to him. If he wants to use these compulsory powers, would it not be better to try to do it on a voluntary basis first? Would it not be better for the Commission to see if these things could be done with willing cooperation, which is always a much more satisfactory way of doing things, before these powers are brought to bear?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment, which has to do with five years.

Mr. Jopling: I am trying to do that, Sir. I am attempting to explain to the House why I think it would be better to try other methods of securing what the Minister wants, instead of taking compulsory powers in the first five years of the Commission's life.

Mr. John M. Temple: My hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will address the Chair. This helps the Official Reporters.

Mr. Temple: My hon. Friend clearly has an enormous grasp of the Bill, having had the good fortune to serve on the Standing Committee for two years. Would he help me about one difficult point which is troubling me as to these compulsory powers? Would it not be possible to change the whole environment of a market town by compulsorily closing down a market and thereby taking away the raison d' etre of that town by the use of these compulsory powers? Is not that a fair example of what might happen as a result of the use of these powers?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) will not satisfy his hon. Friend's quest for knowledge but will come to the Amendment.

Mr. Jopling: I will comply with your request, Sir. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) served on the Standing Committee for some months. I am grateful to him for pointing this out, because I imagine that many market towns could disappear as a result of the use of these powers.
The Amendment is a reasonable one. We did not discuss it, either in Committee or on Report. I cannot help feeling that, if we on this side had, either in Committee or on Report, proposed that the operation of the Commission's powers be delayed for five years so as to allow the Commission to settle down to operate its other functions before coming to Parliament to ask for these powers, the Minister might well have accepted our proposal. I believe that his only reason for not accepting this proposal now is that it originated in another place. We know what the attitude of hon. Members opposite is to Amendments originating in another place.
The Minister has argued that he intends to use these compulsory powers in the interests of flexibility and that it is important that he has these powers so that the Commission can act as it needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) explained that a large proportion of the five years might well elapse before the Commission asked Parliament for the powers. Therefore, the Minister must accept that, if the Commission desired, it could easily spend the last two years of the five-year period preparing for a compulsory scheme and then come to Parliament at the end of five years. I do not believe that the Commission would waste much time in doing that. If the Commission was set in the first 12 months of its life of taking these compulsory powers, it could well be four years before the powers were enacted and put into operation.
The Minister should reconsider the matter and accept the Amendment, having heard what my hon. Friends have said. Little time would be wasted. There could be a breathing space and the Commission could get down to performing those of its functions which are not tied to these compulsory powers.

Mr. Peter Mills: I hope that I may be allowed, before coming to the Amendment, to pay a small tribute to Mr. Tom Williams, as I always thought of him. As a young farmer, many years ago now, I was most impressed by all he tried to do for agriculture, and above all, I was always very impressed by his attitude towards agriculture. He seemed to me to be a sort of father figure who was willing to lead rather than to push or bully us along—and what a far cry that is from what we are experiencing today.
I support the Amendment. Naturally, we would prefer to throw the whole Clause out, but, if we must have it, then let us delay these powers for five years. This Amendment is a sensible Amendment, in line with our thinking on this side of the House. Since we first discussed this matter on Clause 9, I have talked to farmers and many people in the trade, and I tell the House frankly that I dare not repeat some of the comments which they have made about it. Most of those I have talked to would support the Amendment and want some


delay in the powers to be given to the Minister.
I do not believe that anyone really wants these powers, and I cannot understand why the Minister hangs on to the idea that it is necessary to have them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is now too late to discuss whether the Minister should have these powers. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Amendment, he will see that it proposes that the powers should not come into operation for five years.

Mr. Mills: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying, but it is a little difficult.
I am arguing that the Minister should delay the operation of the powers for five years. The very idea of compulsion—the word "compulsory" appears in the Amendment—is quite foreign to agriculture and to the trade as a whole. I am certain that the trade would support the Amendment. It may be true that the National Farmers' Union would not support it, but we all know what the N.F.U. wants; it wants even greater powers than these. But we do not. The trade as a whole would support the Amendment, as the Minister knows very well.
I see no hope of success for the Commission unless the Amendment is accepted. The right climate will not be created unless the powers are delayed for five years, and, if the right climate i3 not there, the thing will never work. It is most important, therefore, that, even at this late hour, the Minister should think again and accept the Amendment so as to create the right climate for the Commission to start its work.
It is difficult to keep to the Amendment, but I must add that, unless these powers are done away with and the Amendment is accepted—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. It is a difficulty which has been experienced by many hon. Members in history. He must study the Amendment and then address his argument to it.

Mr. Mills: All right, Mr. Speaker.
I shall have to bring my short speech to a close by asking the Minister to think again. Otherwise, he will sabotage the Commission before it ever starts. He

must reconsider his whole attitude, realising that the Commission's hope of success will probably depend on his attitude at the end of his debate.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I also support the Amendment. I have always urged that these compulsory powers should not be taken at least until the Commission wants them. The Commission could do good for the meat trade, but it will not do so if it starts off in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. People have become fed up with rules and regulations and compulsion of all sorts.
Every weekend I am in touch at markets with the people who have to come into close daily contact with the Commission. Whenever the Bill has been mentioned, they have expressed themselves as fearful of these compulsory powers, feeling that for the Commission to get off to a fair start it should not have compulsory powers because such powers will bedevil their relations, through their organisations, with the Commission in its early days, and it is the early days which can be so important to any organisation as it grows up.
The Minister knows that I am closely connected with one of the organisations, the livestock auctioneers. Eighteen bodies have written to him, from the auctioneers to tripe processers—the whole gamut of livestock and meat producing organisations representing this great trade throughout the land—and all have expressed a unanimous view on this matter. The Minister must realise that these people will not come to the conference table at the first meetings of the Commission if they are to have these compulsory powers held as a sword over their heads. What an atmosphere in which the Commission will have to start.
All we ask is that the compulsory powers be postponed for five years. To get the confidence of the industry, the Minister should, even at this late stage, allow the Commission to ask for the powers to be brought in rather than saddle it with this threat to be held over the heads of the industry.

Mr. Stainton: I support the Amendment. Generally speaking, I found the Minister to be reasonable in Committee, and I appeal now to his sense of justice


and of proportion in this matter in an effort to persuade him to accept the Amendment.
The Amendment raises the question whether compulsory powers are necessary at all. Admittedly, as you have said from the Chair, Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the matter not in those terms, but from the strict standpoint of whether their operation should be postponed for five years. I shall address myself to the question of five years in a vein which, I hope, will allow me to make the other points.
It would be wrong to say that the Verdon Smith Committee recommended that compulsory powers should be withheld for five years—I am trying to dodge round Mr. Speaker's disapproval—but we all know what its recommendation was. The question of postponement for five years must be considered in terms of one's knowledge of the industry. I do not pretend to a profound knowledge, but I have working contacts with the industry.
It is a highly competitive industry which operates on low margins, and it cannot be described as capital-intensive. In contrast to, for example, cotton spinning and weaving, in which there are large concentrations of capital equipment and in which structural changes are difficult to make, this is a low capital using industry in terms of permanent investment on a large scale, and one would think, therefore, that it would be amenable to spontaneous changes within itself, at least for a period of five years, in which time the Government would have an opportunity to see how the situation was developing.
I cannot persuade myself that the Minister thinks very much in terms of compulsion. On reflection, I feel that what he has in mind is residual powers. At least, I hope that he will say explicitly that that is so. If so, there may well be an argument along those lines. We have already heard tonight about the wheelbarrow that might need pushing, and, therefore, there might be an argument for residual powers.
That brings me to the question of the five-year period in the Amendment. Why precipitate compulsory powers forthwith on the Bill's coming into

force? Why not leave them for a period of five years, as suggested in the Amendment, to see how things go? I must confess that if one pursued the logic of that argument too far one would detect a grave flaw in the wording, in so far as the axe falls precisely after five years. If there is complete validity in my argument the wording of the Amendment would be more in terms of giving the Commission power to seek the compulsory powers after a period of five years.
I think that the five-year period would ameliorate the strain considerably. There has been a great deal of friction in the trade. As my hon. Friend said, the 18 national organisations involved are pulling together for the first time in living memory in distinct opposition to the powers the Minister seeks on behalf of the Commission.
On all those grounds, I should have thought that delay for five years to see how spontaneous "restructuring" of the industry develops would be the best thing, and then move on from there. I commend the Amendment.

Mr. Richard Body: In view of all the representations that have been made the Minister should state to the House in what precise circumstances he envisages use of the compulsory powers inside a period of five years. If he wants those powers he should be able to state to the House what those circumstances are. Then we and the country, particularly the meat trade—in which I include the producers—can judge whether the powers are necessary.
We on this side of the House suspect that the reason for the powers is that, like a good Socialist, the Minister has compulsion on the brain. He assumes that compulsion is necessary in all schemes, and he has so little faith in them that he does not believe that he can bring powers of persuasion to bear in less than five years. If the Commission cannot convince the meat trade and other concerned that such a scheme is workable and sensible in less than five years it does not speak well for this part of the Bill.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to ask himself whether he wants the Commission to get off to a good start. He must realise that the Clause has caused a great


deal of suspicion in the minds of those who are concerned with all aspects of meat, including the producers. I differ slightly from my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) because I think that many producers are doubtful about this part of the Bill, as they like to see competition for what they produce. Some of them are very nervous of some of the streamlining schemes that have been envisaged under the Bill. Some of us do not want all our meat to go to the F.M.C. We like to see the wholesale butchers, the auctioneers and the large combines competing for what we produce, as we then get a fair deal.
Does the Minister want the Commission to get off to a good start? If he wants the good will of those concerned he should fight shy of the compulsory powers being exercised in less than five years.

Mr. Jasper More: I appeal to the Minister at this late stage to try to take a more tolerant attitude to the representations eloquently made by so many of my hon. Friends. It is disappointing that we have had no contribution from the back benches opposite, because the question is not unimportant. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend intervening from a seated position said, it is not too late for a contribution from the other side. On an important issue of this kind it seems wrong that all the contributions should be from only one side of the House.
The compulsory powers were debated at great length in the Standing Committee, and what we are now discussing is what might be called a compromise. When the Bill was discussed here, we on this side of the House asked that there should be no compulsory powers and the Minister demanded them. What is now put to us from another place is essentially a compromise, namely that the compulsory powers should not be deleted from the Bill but should be postponed for five years. That proposal should not have the abrupt rejection which the Minister has so far indicated.
Unfortunately, I understand that it is not permissible to quote from the debates of this Session in another place. That is a great handicap in a way, because many of the speeches there were very

eloquent and persuasive. I think that it would help the House very much if I could have quoted extensively from what was said by Lord Nugent. But I think that I can give the House the tenor of what he said when he put forward the Amendment essentially as a compromise. The success of the Commission will depend on the atmosphere in which it starts its operation. If the provision is bulldozed through in its present form, the Commission will start under the obloquy of any body which is set up with compulsory powers.
Would it not be much better to have a testing period of five years, which would enable the Commission to find its feet, explore its territories, and assess the possibilities of the situation? If it was thought at the end of five years that compulsory powers were suitable we could then, even if the Amendment is accepted, allow the Commission to go forward on a compulsory basis. Is it worth falling out over a question of five years at this stage?
One thing we have learnt from both sides of the House in our agricultural discussions is that what is important in agriculture is to get these things right. We spent 20 months in Committee debating the Bill and on Report in the House we spent 20 hours discussing it. We did this with the object of seeing that we got the Bill right. That being so, is it really too much to ask that, rather than start the Commission off with these compulsory powers, there should be this period of five years in which it can find its feet?
Surely we ought to leave the Bill in the state which agriculturists on both sides of the House like to see in all agricultural affairs, that is to say, sweet reason, good humour, harmony, compromise and commonsense, and I am sure that if the Minister were to seek the leave of the House to withdraw his Motion, the House would most graciously grant him that leave.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: We have been discussing an Amendment to certain powers provided by the Bill. I think we all agree that these are very wide powers which are to be given to the Commission, and I do not propose to dwell on what they are.
What would happen if the right hon. Gentleman were to accept the Amendment? The answer is, I think, not the one which he gave in the course of his speech when he said that if he were to accept it the power to start the rationalisation and concentration of the industry would be delayed. It is not that which matters most. The acceptance of the Amendment would mean that until five years had elapsed no establishment, be it large or small, be it a multiple self-service store or a small hill farm, could be forced to close down under the head of eliminating excess capacity or reducing the number of undertakings involved. It could not be forced or compelled to close down. In simple language, no one could be put out of business by compulsory methods until five years had elapsed.
If the right hon. Gentleman were to accept the Amendment, he could spare the kind of undertakings which I have mentioned and avoid great financial hardship and considerable personal distress. During these five years encouragement would be used, and only if encouragement proved to be of no avail—and in five years he would have the right to say that it was of no avail—would compulsion be used.
What I think was considerably depressing was that the right hon. Gentleman announced the rejection of the Amendment before hearing arguments which were entirely new, which had not been put in another place, which had not been put in Committee upstairs, and which were made with great eloquence, cogency, and considerable conviction by many of my hon. Friends. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with this as a fundamental principle, that it is very much better to carry people with one in a new venture.
I regard the Government's approach to this as being bad psychologically. As many of my hon. Friends have said, we have never been told under what circumstances these powers might be used. The right hon. Gentleman heard a unanimous expression of opinion on this issue today. It reflects the view of the vast majority of people outside the House. I appreciate that it does not represent the views of everyone, because I know that there are people who are opposed to this. I do not

know what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) finds to laugh at.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I am not laughing.

Mr. Stodart: If the hon. Gentleman is not laughing, he has a queer way of expressing his feelings.

Mr. Hoy: I was not laughing. I said that it was not an unimportant section.

Mr. Stodart: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman at least admits that the vast majority of opinion is against granting these compulsory powers. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take heed of the opinions which have been expressed tonight, and to withdraw from the position which he has taken up.

Mr. Peart: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate.
I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) should criticise me for proposing this Motion. This is the procedure which enables us to discuss the Amendment. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can convince me by reason and argument that I am wrong, I can change my policy. This is a right which I have. This is our procedure. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was rather naive, and I was rather surprised, because he is usually much better versed in Parliamentary procedure than he seemed to be tonight when dealing with the Amendment.
We have had a good debate, and I make no complaint about the criticisms which have been made. We have heard many of the arguments over and over again, and it would be wrong to deploy some of the wider arguments which have come up this evening.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) asked me to reply, and to be well mannered, kind, and reasonable. I hope that I am always that. I have been accused of being arrogant, of being intolerant, of being a dictator, and of being a Socialist. I am very proud of that last epithet. I hope that I am a good Socialist.
The hon. Gentleman said that I must consider this Amendment very carefully. It was, he said, after all a compromise, and it was not worth falling out because we were providing something for five years. I thought that this was a matter of principle for the Opposition. I detected this in the speeches of the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), and the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). The hon. Gentleman as always, used extravagant language, and so did the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). I am glad that the lion. Member for Edinburgh, West was a little more reasonable. There is hope for the Conservative Party if hon. Gentlemen opposite adopt this kind of attitude.
I have listened carefully to all the arguments, and I have tried to be reasonable. The right hon. Gentleman said that the powers were not necessary. We are not arguing about that. We have decided that these powers must be provided. It would be wrong to go into detail about them. I would love to go into detail about the powers which the Conservative Party once proposed for the reform of meat marketing. They were very drastic powers—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—they certainly were. It is all on the record—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Peart: —but it would be out of order to pursue that any further.
I reject the charge that I have been arrogant, that the Clause is obnoxious, and that we must therefore have these delaying powers. This argument was deployed in another place. Mr. Speaker is of course right in saying that we cannot quote from speeches made in another place, but the argument was deployed there. There was no real argument in principle against the powers to be given to the Commission. It was argued that we should delay giving the powers. The main argument was that the powers should not be given at this stage.
Tonight we have been told that the powers which are to be given to the Commission are dictatorial, extravagant, obnoxious and so on, but that is not what was said in the constructive speeches made by spokesmen of the Conservative Party in another place.
I assure hon. Members that it is unfair to say that I oppose these Amendments

merely because they come from another place. I have great respect for many of the arguments which are deployed in another place by men who are leaders in the industry and who have great knowledge of it. However, I carefully read the speeches made there both by those who supported my view and by my opponents. There was no argument in principle against what we are proposing and the Amendment is merely to impose a delay of five years.
I have said that there are safeguards and checks. I am surprised that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should pour scorn on the Parliamentary check of the use of the affirmative Resolution. This procedure enables us to have tremendous debate, and I am surprised that that argument should be used.

Mr. More: Pursuing the idea of a compromise, if and when an issue comes to an affirmative Resolution, could it be determined on a free vote of the House, without the Whips on?

Mr. Peart: I cannot see what that has to do with it, especially when it comes from an hon. Member who acted as a Whip in Committee. That is a rather strange suggestion. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite will have a free vote this evening on this issue. However, again it would be out of order to pursue that.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) repeated all the arguments about support. I remind hon. Members that the National Farmers' Union supports this proposal. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that I have addressed more farm meetings than many hon. Members opposite have, and I have explained this provision and not had one atom of criticism. Generally speaking producers support this.

Mr. Peter Mills: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if all the farmers who were members of the N.F.U. knew the full facts, they would not support this and that it is only the leaders who are in support?

Mr. Peart: I could say that it is because the hon. Gentleman has not yet grasped the full facts that he has taken this attitude. It must be remembered that the annual meeting of the N.F.U. came to a decision on this issue. I hope that


the hon. Member will keep in touch with farming opinion.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely said that under Clause 2 the Commission would have to consult the interests concerned, which meant that in any case there was bound to be a delay of five years. It is true that under Clause 2 and Schedule 2 the Commission must go through a number of procedures before submitting a development scheme, but that would not take five years.
All we are saying is that the rapid changes which are taking place in the industry could lead to a situation which required a development scheme to be presented by the Commission, and that that draft scheme could go through all the safeguarding procedures within a period of five years. We believe that that possibility should be kept open and we are not being unreasonable in that.
8.15 p.m.
I do not wish to adopt a dictatorial attitude. As the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) rightly said, we have had long debates on this issue. It has not been rushed through the House, despite the long night sitting, which did not do the hon. Member any harm. There have been nearly two years of discussion and we have accepted some Amendments to the Bill.
If I do not reply to the individual speeches of hon. Members, I shall be told that I am arrogant. The hon. Member for Westmorland spoke of the attitude of a schoolboy at the end of term. He is speaking only for himself. I am perfectly serious and am not attempting to adopt a cavalier attitude. I have examined the Amendments carefully. I know that hon. Members opposite have their doubts, even though there are disagreements among them.

I cannot accept the Lords Amendment, for the reasons which I have given. The hon. Member for Torrington spoke about the compulsion of this provision and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) also asked me to postpone this provision for five years. He suggested that this was an opportunity to do so. This theme was taken up by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), who spoke of knowledge of the industry. I will merely say that the people who will be involved in the Commission will be men of experience in the industry. They will have consultations. They may want to do something within a period of five years. I want them to do the job. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely used a rather peculiar metaphor about barrows. I want the barrow to be moved forward, to be pushed so that it goes safely and sensibly, so that we can achieve great reforms in a very great and complex industry. That is what we all want.

We have had so many commissions and reports about this industry that it is not unreasonable to say that we should give the Commission power to act within five years. Five years is a long time, as hon. Members must appreciate from their own personal point of view. I can only tell the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) that he cannot have read the Bill carefully. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Amendments of hon. Members opposite and also to reject the Lords' Amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 145.

Division No. 307.]
AYES
[8.18 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bishop, E. 8.
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Albu, Austen
Blackburn, F.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Alldritt, Walter
Boardman, H.
Chapman, Donald


Allen, Scholefield
Booth, Albert
Coleman, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Boston, Terence
Concannon, J. D.


Archer, Peter
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Ashley, Jack
Brooks, Edwin
Crawshaw, Richard


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cronln, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Barnett, Joel
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Baxter, William
Buchan, Norman
Dalycll, Tam


Beaney, Alan
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Bence, Cyril
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Cant, R. B.
Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Ifor (Gower)




Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dell. Edmund
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dempsey, James
Jones, T. A. (Rhondda, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Pentland, Norman


Dickens, James
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunnett, Jack
Ledger, Ron
Probert, Arthur


Eadio, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rankin, John


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lee, John (Reading)
Reynolds, G. W.


Ellis, John
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Faulds, Andrew
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Finch, Harold
Lomas, Kenneth
Rose, Paul


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Luard, Evan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rowland, Christopher (Merlden)


Floud, Bernard
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rowlande, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
MoBride, Neil
Ryan, John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacColl, James
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael
Sheldon, Robert


Forrester, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Gardner, Tony
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergten)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Garrett, W. E.
Mackie, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwlch)


Gourlay, Harry
Maclennan, Robert
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Gregory, Arnold
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Slater, Joseph


Grey, Charles (Durham)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Small, William


Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llaneffy)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Manuel, Archie
Symonds, J. B.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mapp, Charles
Taverne, Dick


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marquand, David
Thornton, Ernest


Hamling, William
Mason, Roy
Tinn, James


Hannan, William
Mayhew, Christopher
Tomney, Frank


Harper, Joseph
Mendelson, J. J,
Urwin, T. W.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Variey, Eric G.


Haseldine, Norman
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walker, Harold (Doncaater)


Hazell, Bert
Molloy, William
Watkins, David (Consett)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Henig, Stanley
Moyle, Roland
Weitzman, David


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Neal, Harold
Wellbeloved, James


Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stan
Whitaker, Ben


Horner, John
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Phillp(Derby,S.)
Whitlock, William


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Norwood, Christopher
Wilkins, W. A.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Howie, W.
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hoy, Jamet
Orme, Stanley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Huckfleld, L.
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Padley, Walter
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hunter, Adam
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)



Hynd, John
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Park, Trevor
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cooke, Robert
Grieve, Percy


Alitor, John
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmund*)


Baker, W. H. K.
Corfield, P. V.
Grlmond, Rt. Hn, J.


Bataford, Brian
Costaln, A. P.
Gurdan, Harold


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hall-Davis, A. Q. P.


Bell, Ronald
Crawley, Aldan
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bennett, 8lr Frederic (Torquay)
Crouch, David
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Bessell, Peter
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Harris, Reader (Haston)


Biffen, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harrison, Brian (Matdon)


Biggs-Davison, John
Davldson,Jamee(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Black, Sir Cyril
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Aehford)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vers


Body, Richard
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Eden, Sir John
Hawkins, Paul


Braine, Bernard
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Brewis, John
Eyre, Reginald
Higgins, Terence L.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fortescue, Tim
Hill, J. E. B.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Foster, Sir John
Holland, Philip


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Hooson, Emlyn


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Gibson-Watt, David
Hornby, Richard


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gllmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Hunt, John


Burden, F. A.
Gllmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Campbell, Gordon
Glover, Sir Douglas
Iremonger, T. L.


Carlisls, Mark
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gower, Raymond
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Ciegg, Walter
Grant, Anthony
Jopling, Michael







Kershaw, Anthony
Nichoils, Sir Harmar
Temple, John M.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kitson, Timothy
Onslow, Cranley
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Walnwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wall, Patrick


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Walters, Dennis


Loveys, W. H.
Peel, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Lubbock, Eric
Percival, Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner
Webster, David


MacArthur, Ian
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pym, Francis
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


McMaster, Stanley
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maddan, Martin
Robson Brown, Sir William
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Marten, Nell
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maude, Angus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mawby, Ray
Stainton, Keith
Worsley, Marcus


Maxwelt-Hysfop, R. 1.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wright, Esmond


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stodart, Anthony
Wylie, N. R.


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)



Miscampbell, Norman
Summers, Sir Spencer
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Monro, Hector
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Jasper More and


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Mr. David Mitchell


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Clause 12.—(NEW PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF BEEF COW SUBSIDIES.)

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 15, line 31, after "calf" insert:
or has, in the opinion of the appropriate Minister, been brought into a herd to replace one which has borne a calf".

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of the Amendment is to enable subsidy to be paid where a suitable heifer has been brought into a herd to replace a cow that has died or been culled. Without the Amendment, subsidy could be paid only if the heifer replacement had had its calf before the prescribed date.
Although there must be a prescribed date for administrative purposes, calving and replacement go on constantly throughout the year, without reference to an arbitrary date of this sort. The Amendment provides flexibility to enable us to deal with replacements in a sensible way that accords with the practical situation and to avoid the anomalies and inequity that could otherwise arise. In particular, it will enable subsidy to be paid where a cow which has suckled a spring-born calf is culled in the autumn and is replaced by a heifer which will itself calve in the coming spring and so maintain the breeding pattern of the herd. This represents sound husbandry, with the breeding herd kept constantly up to size.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Godber: This would appear to be a sensible Amendment, practical in its application, and, therefore, we can agree with it.
However, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary this. Is he satisfield that the wording ensures that there will be no abuse? We all wish to see sensible arrangements made, but he will appreciate, as we do, that if there were the risk of abuse it would tend to bring the provision into disrepute. I wonder how the conditions in which replacement takes place will be ensured. Presumably a check will be made, which the farming community would welcome. Adequate safeguards should be made in connection with provisions of this kind.

Mr. Mackie: With permission, I should like to reply to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber).
We have worded the provision as carefully as we could. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, it is difficult to put anything on the Statute Book through which it is not sometimes possible to ride a cart and horse, to use an agricultural expression. But the wording, I think, makes it perfectly clear that what is involved is the breeding herd. This Amendment is simply to allow for replacement which goes on through the year. It does not allow somebody to bring in a whole lot of heifers just to get the subsidy. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is a safe provision.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 14.—(LEVY: REGISTRATION, RETURNS AND RECORDS.)

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 19, line 14, leave out from "scheme" to "or" in line 15 and insert "knowingly".

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a technical drafting Amendment to achieve conformity with similar provisions in the Agriculture Acts of 1937, 1947 and 1957. The sense of the wording is not affected. There is a corresponding Amendment in page 79, line 14, of Clause 67.

Mr. Godber: We welcome the Amendment most warmly. There is a moral in it. One word has been found to take the place of thirteen words. If this could be achieved in other drafting respects, it would help materially.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 21.—(NQUIRIES BY COMMISSION.)

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 22, line 35, at the end to insert:
() Tie Chairman at any such inquiry shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and shall be a barrister, advocate or solicitor of not less than 10 years' standing and shall be assisted by such members of the Commission as the Commission may nominate.

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Hoy: I cannot understand that, because the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) argued on the previous Amendment that it was better to wait to hear the argument before making up one's mind. I am sorry that hon. Members opposite should have made up their minds before they heard the argument.
I apologise for having to say considerably more than I normally say, but I believe it to be right on this occasion. I have every sympathy with the spirit that prompted this Amendment. Indeed, if the facts were as the speeches of the

movers of the Amendment in another place suggested, I should be the first to support it. But they are not. Unfortunately, there has been considerable misunderstanding of the Clause, perhaps ever since the Bill was first published. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will bear with me if I comment fairly fully in order to get the facts straight.
The Amendment would have the effect of requiring that all inquiries held by the Commission under Clause 21 must have a legal chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and I should like to draw attention to what this would mean in practice.
Subsection (1) empowers the Commission to hold such inquiries as it considers necessary or desirable for the discharge of any of its functions. Without this subsection, the Commission would not be authorised to hold any inquiries, whether or not they involved any use of the compulsory powers described later in the Clause to summon witnesses and take evidence on oath. In other words, subsection (1) is the only authority provided in the Bill for the Commission to undertake inquiries of any kind, however informal.
There could be, for example, technical fact-finding inquiries into how the industry works, how particular sectors operate, how different kinds of meat are treated, and so on—facts about which there is likely to be no dispute, but which are essential if the Commission is to be able to do its job in an informed and proper way. The majority of these inquiries—and perhaps even all of them, because we envisage that the compulsory powers will need to be used only in exceptional circumstances—will probably be held on an entirely informal basis, without any recourse to the compulsory procedures.
But the effect of the Amendment would be to require that all of these inquiries, no matter how informal and how limited, must have a legal chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor. I have no hesitation in saying that this arrangement would be unworkable, and that I wonder whether the mover of the Amendment really intended it. Even the most passionate advocate of the Amendment must surely recognise that a legal chairman would be inappropriate to the kind of informal inquiries into technical matters which I have already mentioned.
These are in themselves sufficient reasons for rejecting this wide Amendment, but I want to deal fairly with the question whether a legal chairman would be appropriate to some particular type of inquiry which could be held under this Clause. I do so because it seems to be widely and mistakenly thought that, even if most inquiries were innocent, there could be some in which the Commission would be both plaintiff and judge in its own cause. But how could this be so? Where in this Clause is there any power for the Commission to pass judgment or to take any other kind of decision? How, therefore, could there be a cause? There are powers to hold inquiries to obtain information, and only to obtain information.
If this is accepted—and if it is not, then I must ask any hon. Member who differs from it to specify what other powers are included in this Clause—then the fear must really be that the Commission might take and implement a decision under some other Clause on the sole basis of information obtained at an inquiry. I recognise that the possibility of inquiries under Clause 21 being held in connection with development schemes under Clause 9 has been worrying those in the trade, and I want to answer their fears. The answer is in two parts, because there could be an inquiry either, first, in connection with the formulation of a scheme, or, secondly, in connection with a scheme already made.
Dealing, first, with the use of the powers of inquiry where no development scheme has been made, I certainly do not dispute that the Commission could use these powers to obtain the facts before considering whether or not to prepare and approve a draft development scheme. But this process of acquiring information would not put anyone out of business—this is equally true whether the information is got from an inquiry, or through consultations or in any other way; nor would the Commission be committed to any particular policy at this stage; and it is difficult to see any justification for imposing a legal chairman on one particular type of fact-finding operation.
If a development scheme were subsequently drafted, when perhaps the Commission could then be said to be com-

mitted, the draft scheme would have to pass through all the procedures listed in Clause 2 and Schedule 2, which are there to safeguard the interests and to ensure fair play. The House will not wish me once again to repeat this long list of procedures and safeguards, but I would like to point out that if an independent inquiry seems necessary before Ministers can satisfy themselves that a scheme is desirable, I am advised that they are empowered to appoint such an inquiry.
The second aspect was the possibility that a compulsory inquiry might be held in connection with a development scheme already made. For example, it has been suggested that an inquiry could force a trader to give information which would reveal that he was in a category adversely affected by a development scheme. Without entering into the merits of such a case, or considering whether the presence of a legal chairman would make any difference to it, I would suggest that the critics are forgetting that a draft development scheme will have to set out very precisely what is to be done. So if the scheme was one where the Commission would need to obtain information for its operation, it ought to be clear at the draft stage how the scheme would fit in with the Commission's other powers and duties.
Any omission or ambiguity in this respect is a matter to which the interests concerned, the Ministers and Parliament will all be particularly sensitive in the course of the preparation of a scheme. So no question of the unforeseen use of the Commission's powers under Clause 21 for this purpose could arise, and any safeguards which were thought to be needed against misuse of these powers could be included in the scheme.
For these reasons we do not see any justification for saying that some inquiries held under Clause 21 should have legal chairmen just because Clause 9 is also part of the Bill.
I have spoken at some length on this Amendment because I wanted to clear up some of the misunderstandings which seem to have arisen on the Clause. No one in the Government, or indeed in any Government, would wish to be a party to a provision which might lead to injustice being done, but Clause 21 is not


such a provision. The Amendment proposed would impose a requirement which would without question be unworkable. If the requirement were limited only to inquiries at which the compulsory powers were used, it would still be unnecessary and inappropriate to the purposes for which the powers of inquiry could be used, and it would interfere with the efficient operation of the Commission.
For all these reasons, I ask the House to disagree with this Amendment.

Mr. Stodart: This subject interested us upstairs in Committee and it interested another place. It concerns the qualifications which ought to be held by the chairman when the Commission holds an inquiry. I thank the hon. Gentleman for going to the length he did in explaining the matter but I must tell him that I myself remain perhaps not so unconvinced as I was but by no means convinced by his argument.
When we discussed this upstairs, his colleague, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) said that what was wanted in the chairman was an honest-to-God layman who knew all the 'acts of life and not a legal luminary who required people to get up when he came n and gave the impression that, as it were, a court was sitting.
In the House of Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walston rather repeated that argument. He was asked what sort of things would be inquired into. He gave two examples. He said, first, the cuts of meat proposed as being required for a particular area and, secondly, possibly the retail margins which were being charged. So far as the first of these examples is concerned, there can be no possible need for a summons to be issued, for witnesses to be put on oath or declaration or for allowing someone who is summoned to appeal to the High Court against a demand by the Commission for any particular document. If these were all that could be inquired into, the Clause would not exist.
The hon. Gentleman has squarely faced the fact that the scope for inquiry is much wider. It could be held into anything which the Commission thinks desirable for the discharge of its functions, which include classification of carcases, labelling and pricing of meat in shops under Clause 6, powers to meet future developments in Clause 9, the introduction of develop-

ment schemes, the compelling of extra capacity to be eliminated and a reduction in the number of undertakings.
8.45 p.m.
These are serious enough matters for evidence to be given on oath, but these matters, which are not the only ones which can be inquired into, are ail too serious for the chairman of the body which has taken what must be controversial decisions, in that someone will not agree with them, to preside over the inquiry to which wtnesses are summoned with all the formality of the law and can be put on oath.
It would be much better not only for the Commission but for its chairman if he gave up his seat on these occasions and therefore rid himself of any possible charge of partisanship. For what I think are good reasons—though I would not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be convinced yet—I would not take the advice or listen to the plea of the hon. Gentleman, eloquent though it was.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Nothing has contributed more to public disquiet about marketing hoards than disciplinary cases, when the chairman has had to preside in a way which may be thought by the uninformed and even the well informed to be that of a judge in his own court. I am thinking particularly of the lamentable history of the Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board, now defunct. Nothing did more to undermine confidence in it than those disciplinary cases at which particularly Mr. Jack Merricks championed the individual liberty of the subject. The last thing any of us want is for the Commission to be in the kind of predicament which that board faced. If we reject this Lords Amendment we will at once be running a grave risk of this happening again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) rightly cited some of the powers in addition to those listed in Clause 9. Consider, for example, the powers under Clause 2 and the obligation on the Commission, in the course of exercising its functions, to refer to the Production Committee, if what it is doing may be disadvantageous to producers, to the Distribution Committee, if it may be disadvantageous to distributors, and to the Consumers Committee, if it may be disadvantageous to


to consumers. In addition, an inquiry may be set up under Clause 21.
The more one examines this matter the more certain one becomes that the chairman of the Commission will be in the position of presiding over a case when he is the principal officer being challenged. Since the Joint Parliamentary Secretary feels that it would be unwise to insist on having a lawyer presiding over one of these informal inquiries—and I particularly noted the word "informal" —why does Clause 21(9) enable anyone who so wishes to insist that the inquiry take place in private? This does not exactly smack of an informal, but of a public, inquiry.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary probably thinks that this is a safeguard for the individual concerned, but is it? Suppose that the individual is not legally represented—which he has no obligation to be—and decides to present his own case, as it were. I have always thought that one of the greatest safeguards in a case of that kind is that the British Press is represented. If we are suddenly to have a closed court there will be nobody to report to the public what has happened during that phase of the inquiry. Before we know where we are, we will have a secret court on our hands.
If we are moving into the age when we are so disturbed about public administration that it is thought necessary to create the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, we should be on our guard before multiplying the number of quasi-judicial courts that already exist, I believe, in over-abundant numbers. Inevitably, the development of this trend would place the Commission in the most intolerable position.

Mr. William Baxter: What has all this to do with the chairman of the Commission? The hon. Gentleman is referring to a matter which surely has nothing to do with the chairman.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Having had some experience of taking the chair at various meetings—

Mr. Baxter: So have I.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: —I should have thought that the more legalistic an argu-

ment is likely to become, the more vital it will be that whoever takes the chair is experienced in dealing with lawyers putting points to the chair. I can think of nothing more intolerable than having a legal case argued out at an inquiry, with lawyers presenting their points, and with the chairman not necessarily having any knowledge of the law. That, surely, is the great danger of leaving it open in this way so that an inquiry can be set up without any obligation for the chair to be taken by someone with legal experience.

Mr. Baxter: Surely that is quite common practice in Britain. Even in a court of justice, cases are heard by a justice of the peace who does not necessarily have legal experience, and people before him can be represented by legal minds. That does not only happen in that sort of case, but in inquiries involving local authorities and in county valuation committees.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am well aware of the procedure adopted on the bench, but I wonder what magistrates would do without the clerk to the justices. There is always a trained legal adviser available to the bench—

Mr. Baxter: It depends on the calibre of the clerk.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: There is nothing written into this Clause to insist upon that—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) wants to hear my answer to the point which he has put to me or to carry on a dialogue across the Gangway.
As I read the Clause, there is no obligation upon the Commission, should it decide to hold an inquiry, to have a legal adviser present. I should have thought that that would make it even more important that the chairman of the inquiry should be a person with legal experience.
The more we tend to move in this direction, the more certain it becomes that dubiety starts to be introduced where it should not be present. Whatever disciplinary machinery we set up under the Bill, I should have thought that it was essential that it should be known to be, seen to be and respected as being beyond


reproach. When one looks back at all the quasi-judicial bodies which were set up in connection with agriculture in the past, I should think differently from the way that I do if I thought that it could be said that there has never been any doubt that a hearing was fair and that the individual was treated equitably. The more one looks back, the more certain one is that there have been all too many occasions when there has been doubt about the position of a person under the law and one has wondered whether true justice has been done. I can see it all happening again, especially when I look at the multitude of functions which the Commission is to be given.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that there is no question of anyone being put out of business under this Bill. Reading Clause 9 (2,a), I say without hesitation that, legally, there is no doubt that that entitles the Commission to put someone out of business. As long as the power exists, it is imperative that any disciplinary machinery which is set up should be set up in the certain knowledge that the utmost rectitude will obtain from a legal point of view.
I have no alternative, therefore, to say that I cannot agree with the Parliamentary Sec7etary in his proposition. I should like to see the Lords Amendment embodied in the Bill.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: In spite of what the Minister said, he has not convinced me on this subject. I still think that there is a very strong case for an independent chairman. If such an independent chairman were appointed that would help to create the right climate. Goodness knows, after our discussion on the first Amendment we need some encouragement to be given to the Commission. I do not think that the Minister realises or understands the point about creating the right climate. There are very real fears about this matter, especially when it comes to questions of inquiries and courts. It is essential that we should have an independent chairman.

Mr. W. Baxter: I presume that if he does not recollect, the hon. Member will have read about the executive committees which were formed under the 1947 Act and which did yeoman service. They did not have legal chairmen, but they

were composed principally of agricultural people.

Mr. Mills: That may be so, but this Commission will be far more complicated and will have very far-reaching results.

Mr. More: My hon. Friend will remember that after the war agricultural tribunals were set up to determine difficult questions affecting landlords and tenants. They were found to be so unsatisfactory without legal chairmen that the whole procedure had to be revised.

Mr. Mills: That answers the point far better than I could have done. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More).
The Minister said that it was ridiculous to have a legal man who would have to take part in every little inquiry. That may be so; by having an independent chairman we might be overdoing the matter, but it would make clear that fair play was being observed. That would satisfy farmers, the trade, those concerned with slaughterhouses and the public, who have much at stake in any sort of inquiry of this kind.
I should have thought that the Minister would desire this safeguard. In reply to any criticism he would be able to point out that there was an independent chairman. It is very sad that he brushes this aside. The idea of an independent chairman is right and it is important that he should be a legal man. I do not think that I have ever advocated before that a legal man should take a prominent part in our affairs, but in this case this is necessary because of the conflicting interests which are bound to be found.
The marketing boards have learned by experience of this sort of inquiry and disciplinary committee how important it is to have an independent chairman. I support what was said in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton). He thought it would be a good idea for the Minister to consider the possibility of setting up a permanent judicial board to which all marketing boards or similar bodies might refer this kind of inquiry or disciplinary action. That would be a very wise move. I am sorry that the Minister has forgotten that suggestion and


is not even prepared to have an independent chairman.
We on this side of the House accept that it is necessary for inquiries to be held, but there must be safeguards. All those interested in the matter must have faith and trust in a committee and its chairman. For these reasons we need the safeguard of an independent chairman. This is a reasonable Amendment. I should have thought that even at this late hour the Minister might reconsider his attitude and start to create the right climate for the Commission.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: My hon. Friends have made a devastating case against the Government's proposal to reject the Amendment. I am surprised that the Bill should have been allowed to reach this final stage without it being realised that it is unsatisfactory to found every inquiry that the Commission may wish to make on this one Clause.
The Clause, to say the least, is full of conflict. It is a grave error of judgment to seek to deal in one Clause with informal inquiries and inquiries of a nature which may be contested. There is all the difference in the world between an agreed fact-finding exercise, which may in no way be disputed and which, therefore, can be done informally, and the type of inquiry which will be resisted out of fear or suspicion that those inquired into may be being asked to reveal, for example, commercial information which may be of the greatest advantage to their competitors either in this country or overseas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): We are not dealing now with the type of inquiry which can be held under subsection (1). That does not arise on the Amendment. We are dealing on the Amendment only with the question as to who the chairman should be.

Mr. Hill: With respect, we are trying to determine, not who the chairman should be, but whether the chairman should be legally qualified. This is essential in the case of an inquiry which may be contested. I was seeking to suggest merely what I think would be a common reason for anyone wishing to resist an inquiry or, at any rate, to be afraid of the inquiry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We cannot go back on the question which has already been agreed as to the nature of the inquiries which can be held under subsection (1).

Mr. Hill: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the fact is that, as the Bill stands, any inquiry, whether accepted or resisted, must come through this procedure. There is the rather odd feature in the Clause that the Commission may take the initiative by summoning someone by legal process to produce all evidence. There is nothing informal about that. If, as my hon. Friends have suggested, a witness avails himself of the right to be represented by counsel, it is essential, in the Commission's interest, that there should be someone in charge of the inquiry who has proper legal qualifications.
In an ideal Bill some provision for informal inquiries might well have been made separately. I am surprised that the Government have reached this late stage without realising the obvious difficulty. Why cannot the Commission be enabled to carry out uncontested inquiries by another and simpler procedure? Once an element of contest or objection enters into it, the case for a legally qualified chairman becomes overwhelming. Some alleged misbehaviour during the course of the inquiry—the attitude of the chairman might have a great bearing on the behaviour of the witness—might result in further procedure which could, under the Clause, lead to imprisonment. Subsection (11) provides for a sentence of imprisonment for certain matters of misconduct by witnesses.
In a contested inquiry it is, therefore, essential, where, as my hon. Friend for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) has pointed out, there may be a very awkward and hostile witness, one who is just appearing before the Commission so as to be troublesome, that the chairman should be armed with legal knowledge and experience, so that neither he himself nor the Commission may be exposed to the damage which might result from the chairman's, through inexperience or lack of knowledge of the law, taking some steps with regard to the witness which may be unfortunate.
As the Government have not made adequate provision for informal inquiries before this late stage of the Bill, as I


wish they had, they must accept this Amendment. If it would cause a certain amount of over-formality or difficulty in manning inquiries, then, at a later stage, the Government may need amending legislation to relax the discipline of the inquiry. But to go forward with the provision as it is would lead to the possibility of grave injustice and great damage both to the witnesses themselves and to the very conception of the Commission's duties which the Government wish to support.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will, though reluctantly perhaps, accept the Amendment.

Mr. Hawkins: I hope to persuade the Minister to accept that the whole industry wants the chairman to be independent and disinterested in cases of this sort. I am an agricultural arbitrator, and on one occasion, after I had appeared before an agricultural executive committee, the chairman said to me that he greatly wished that he did not have to appear in such a case in which it seemed that he was judge and jury at the same time. I am convinced that these gentlemen do not like having to do this work. It throws an additional burden upon them. I believe, also, that those who are likely to be brought before any such inquiry feel themselves put at a disadvantage. For this reason, although I do not consider that it is essential to have a legal gentleman in charge, I beg the Minister to accept that the chairmen should be someone who is independent and disinterested.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) reminded the Minister that the Cucumber and Tomato Board was put out of business largely because this procedure brought it into disrepute. Something similar has happened in other cases. I have heard members of the Egg Marketing Board, for instance, say that they wish that this procedure could be taken out of their hands so that they were relieved of this type of business.
Throughout our proceedings on the Bill, the Minister has agreed with me—I put the point to him many times and he recognises that I am sincere in it—that if we are to have this Commission and it is to start off on the right foot, there must be a good climate. This Amendment gives the right hon. Gentleman one way of giving the industry proof

that he wishes the Commission to start off on the right foot. I am certain that he will undo all the good work which he has done if he does not allow it to do that, and this is one small way in which he can show the outside world that he wants, as I know he does, justice to be seen to be done as well as to be done.
The livelihood of many people in business could be affected by the evidence which they were compelled to give, disclosing to their rivals and neighbours some of their own private business affairs. I am sure that the Minister realises this. I can only urge him again to accept the Amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I was impressed by the seriousness with which the Parliamentary Secretary tackled this Lords Amendment, but I have not been impressed during the debate on it since by the seriousness with which the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary have listened to the arguments from this side of the House. They have been reading books, laughing or smirking. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister thinks that I have just come in, but I have been here all the time. The Minister has been reading a book.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member cannot be aware that there is on the Table a biography of Members, and was checking on the hon. Member. I merely wondered who he was.

Mr. Crouch: I had already deduced that that was what the Minister was doing, because I was not a Member of the Committee. Anyway, the Minister has a benign expression on his face and I hope that he will continue to have it as he listens to our argument—and I hope that he will be able to hear what we say.
The point here is not only that we need to have an inquiry headed by a competent chairman but that the inquiry should be headed by a lawyer who is also impartial. Having decided to call for evidence and to summon someone before them, the Commission and the chairman are in the position of a plaintiff. If the chairman of the Commission is to take the chair at the inquiry he will then be both plaintiff and judge in his


own cause, as has already been said by my hon. Friends.
We heard from the Parliamentary Secretary that it would be "unworkable" for the inquiries to be conducted by a lawyer. Why should it be unworkable? There is much more at stake than finding out information, and the Bill mentions how much might be at stake for the person summoned before such an inquiry, which is a serious business.
Subsection (2) says:
… the Commission may by summons require any person to attend …
Subsection (4) says:
Within fourteen days of service of a summons under this section, the person served may appeal to the High Court on the ground that any of the evidence, or any document, which he may be required to give or produce in pursuance of the summons is not reasonably required by the Commission for the execution of their functions under this Act, …
That subsection refers to the serious legal possibilities with which the person summoned before the inquiry might be faced.
Subsection (6) says:
No person shall be compelled for the purposes of an inquiry under this section to give any evidence or produce any document which he could not be compelled to give or produce in proceedings before the High Court.
It is recognised that a legal problem may be involved for the person appearing before the inquiry.
In subsection (8) it is stated
… the Commission may take evidence on oath and for that purpose administer oaths, …
Again, a legal background and atmosphere are seen to be about to be established.
Subsection (9) says:
… the Commission shall exclude the public from the hearing while that person gives his evidence.
if it is decided that that should be so.
Those five quotations show that we are treading on ground where the advice of a lawyer, not sitting behind the chairman as a judge advocate might sit behind the chairman of a court-martial, but sitting in the chair, would be a great advantage to the Commission and to the person summoned before it. Subsection (10), which describes the procedure for such an inquiry, says that
any person appearing thereat shall be entitled to representation by counsel, solicitor or any other person.

Again, we have there an admission that we are faced with a legal situation. Finally, at the end of the Clause, we are reminded that if a person summoned before the inquiry does not appear, or suppresses some evidence, he
shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds …
I admit that these inquiries will be for the benefit of the agriculture industry, the Commission itself, the farmer, the butcher, and the meat trader generally, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said, it is important that they should start on the right foot. I implore the Minister to think seriously about what we have been trying to put to him tonight. We want the Commission to be a success, but we feel that there is so much of a legal nature at stake for the persons appearing at these inquiries that the Government should consider whether it is not unwise and injudicious that the chairman of the Commission placing a complaint before someone summoned to an inquiry, should himself sit, as it were, in judgment on his own cause.

Mr. More: I would like to echo most warmly the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), and to say at once how much I regret the aspersion which the Minister attempted to cast on him by saying that he had not been present during the debate. More than once earlier today I had occasion to speak to my hon. Friend, and I can vouch for the fact that he was in the Chamber. I think that anybody listening to his speech must acknowledge how completely he has grasped the essentials of the issue which we are considering.
There has been only one small possibility of disharmony on these benches. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) that I regret his view that it is more important to have an independent chairman than a chairman with legal qualifications. Everyone is always very unkind about lawyers, but the fact is that non-lawyers never recognise the true function which lawyers should perform. Whenever, in this House, something comes up which has a legal sound about it, for instance the Criminal Justice Bill, or something of that kind, everyone says, "That is a matter for lawyers. Leave it


to them". When we have something like the Meat and Livestock Commission, the natural thing is to say that this is a matter for people who understand the meat trade.
This is all wrong, because the truth of the matter is that when discussing criminal procedure, or how things should be conduced, what we want are not lawyers, but laymen with common sense, and speaking as one who has been upstairs for some weeks as a member of the Standing Committee considering the Criminal Justice Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to suggest that someone in the meat trade should be on the Criminal Justice Bill, he is out of order.

Mr. More: Coming back to the meat trade, it is a fact that as soon as one gets off the subject of the law, and one has to have an inquiry into any other subject, the essential thing is that it should be presided over, not by somebody who knows the topic in question, but by somebody who has legal qualifications. This is because the object of being a lawyer and of being trained in the law is not simply to know the law, but to know how to elucidate the facts. When one reads in newspapers that a judge trying a case has solemnly asked, "Who is Jayne Mansfield?" and everybody says, "Silly old man"—

Mr. Speaker: With great respect, Jayne Mansfield is out of order on this Amendment.

Mr. More: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
Coming back to the meat trade, a legal presiding officer asks, "What is a meat cut?", and everybody says, "Silly old man. He does not even know that."; but the answer is that he is merely trying to get the essential facts elucidated. That is the object of having a legally qualified chairman in matters which to all appearances are not legal.
I need not reinforce the cogent observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury on the subsequent subsections of this Clause, particularly subsection (7)—my hon. Friend called it subsection (6), which is what it was when it left this House—about giving evidence or producing documents which a witness could not be compelled to produce or give in proceedings before the High

Court. That alone impresses one with the importance of having to preside over these proceedings someone who has some idea of what the rules of the High Court are.
If it is said that there will always be legal guidance in this kind of inquiry, that is to fall easily into another very unsatisfactory state of affairs. If a layman is conducting what is largely a technical legal inquiry, and is faced with that kind of thing and has to have a legal assistant, first, that legal assistant has to be paid, which is a cost to the taxpayer, and, secondly, one falls into the position of the lay members doing what they are told by their legal adviser.
I appreciate the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), but I reinforce what all my other hon. Friends have said about the importance of having at the head of an inquiry of this kind someone who is legally qualified and who, while he may appreciate the advice of a legal assistant, is nevertheless able in his own right to say how the proceedings should be conducted, what the scope of the inquiry is, and how evidence should be adduced and documents produced.

Mr. Jopling: I understood the Minister to say that it was only under Clause 21 that the Commission would have an opportunity to hold inquiries. I do not quite understand why that is so. Clause 21(1) says:
The Commission may hold such inquiries as they consider necessary or desirable for the discharge of any of their functions".
I well understand that, but the functions of the Commission are set out in Schedule 1, of which paragraph 13 says that they are
Promoting or undertaking investigations and research as to—

(a) the production, marketing and distribution of livestock,
(b) the production, processing, manufacture, marketing and distribution of livestock products,
(c) the demand (whether in Great Britain or elsewhere) for livestock and livestock products and connected matters, including prices paid for livestock and livestock products."
I will not read any more of this, but it seems that it is one of the specific functions of the Commission either to get someone to do this, or to do it itself,


and to have investigations and promote research into all these matters covering, in a few lines, the great proportion of the functions of the Commission.
Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that this point is covered under paragraph (13) of Schedule 1. I do not quite understand why this point that Clause 21 is the only part of the Bill allowing the Commission to hold inquiries into the discharge of its functions, was made. This is covered, and I suggest that this point is not valid, and, therefore, all the excellent points on the legal matters made by my hon. Friends have full force, and are not diluted by the points made by the Minister.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I rise only to reinforce what my hon. Friends have said, because they have put some very good points, which need little support from me. I hope that they will have their effect on the Minister and cause him to revise his view of this Amendment. I was sorry that the Minister said what he did about my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), and I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) responded to that. The truth is that there have been so many hon. Members present on our side that it was easy for the Minister to miss one. Had it been an hon. Member opposite it would have been very remiss of anyone not to have noticed because there have been so very few present during the debate. That is probably the reason for the Minister's unfortunate oversight.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends for what they have said about this important Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary has not really measured up to the point made. He said that he would like to hear the arguments and having heard them I hope that, with the authority of his right hon. Friend, he will feel able to reverse the recommendations made. A very strong case has been spelt out by my hon. Friends for this Amendment. The Amendment concerns the type of chairman that there shall be at an inquiry. The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) illustrates the uncertainty that there is about this Clause. Perhaps we should have taken this up at an early stage in Committee. It is really the use of the

word "inquiry" in the first line which can lead to a certain degree of misunderstanding. The line reads:
The Commission may hold such inquiries as they consider necessary …
It is the use to be made of the word "inquiry" which is causing concern. Obviously the Commission may make inquiries of any type at any time. This is the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland was directing his remarks, that presumably the use of the word "inquiry" is to indicate a more formal inquiry. That is the only justification for the other subsections in relation to this Clause.
If this is so, and if it is to be a formalised type of inquiry, as these other subsections make it appear essential, then there is great validity in his claim for a chairman of the category specified in the Amendment. The Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary have not measured up to this point, that if an inquiry is to be in these conditions, and if it shall be a question of persons being summoned to attend, and that there shall be all the provisions laid out in these various subsections, including that which gives the powers to the individual to be represented by a solicitor, counsel or any other person, it is surely envisaged that there will be a formalised inquiry.
That being so, it is not unreasonable for those summoned to expect to be able to appear before someone with legal training. If I understood the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary it was not feasible or possible to do this from the form and type of inquiry that was intended. It was said that it would break down if there were a legal chairman. There is provision for the informal type of inquiry in the normal working of the Commission. It is only when the inquiry is precise and formal that Clause 21 operates.
No case has been made out for not giving the protection which a chairman with legal training would be able to provide. The Government's arguments are not adequate, and, unless they produce much better arguments in response to the debate, I shall be bound to advise my hon. Friends to vote on the Amendment.

Mr. Hoy: We have had an interesting debate. I do not wish to get too


involved in an argument about the number of Members present, but it was rather peculiar that when the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) made a comparison of the attendance in the House there were 17 Members on either side. It may well be that hon. Members opposite cannot see as well from their side of the House as we can from ours, but we cannot be blamed for that. This sort of argument does not take us very far.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) was kind enough to thank me for what I said in endeavouring to explain the Clause. He even went so far as to say that he was not as unconvinced as before. I was grateful for that. Then he went further and said that he was still not convinced although he had got halfway along the road.
The hon. Member went on to deal with certain examples given by a noble Lord in another place about cuts of meat. I quoted a few examples which I thought were relevant. The hon. Gentleman chose not to use them. I was pointing out the sort of thing which could arise if an inquiry were held which did not call for the skill of an advocate of 10 years' standing, appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Even the hon. Gentleman would agree that we would not want the skill of a Q.C. to tell us how to define a cut of beef.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) had some things to say about secret courts. He painted a very lurid picture of people meeting in secret. He admitted that he came into the Chamber halfway through my speech. I do not object to that; he is entitled to be out of the Chamber. But, having been out during half of my speech, he is not entitled to seek to represent what I said.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The moment the hon. Gentleman's name went up on the annunciator, I came into the Chamber.

Mr. Hoy: I am not objecting. The hon. Gentleman spoke about secret courts, and so on, and when I make a simple reply to him he gets very touchy.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely went on to use—and another hon. Member opposite fell for his argument—the analogy of a marketing board and referred to Mr. Jack Merricks. The com-

parison with disciplinary boards under a marketing scheme is invalid, because there are no disciplinary powers in Clause 21 or elsewhere in the Bill which would permit the Commission to be the judge in its own case. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's analogy falls completely.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and I have met on occasions. On the last occasion, his argument was much stronger than the argument which he adduced tonight. He fell for the argument of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely. Every subsection of the Clause which he quoted was a protection for the individual.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman then talked about this being the next step into the secret courts. He knows that to be quite untrue. I noticed that he missed out a very significant line in one of the subsections he quoted. He had obviously failed to notice that the inquiry is to be held in private only when the person giving the information requests that it be in private. It must be done at the request of the person concerned. Only when the person concerned decides that it should does the secrecy come into play.
This is right, and I was a little surprised when this argument was used, because the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) said something about having to disclose trade information. That is why I say that this provision is right. The person concerned is not on trial, he is not being disciplined or anything like that, but he may be helping the Commission with information that he wants to keep from his competitors. This is what the argument is about. All I am saying, and I insist on saying it, is that there can be no secrecy unless the person concerned requests it for himself.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: But can the person demand secrecy, or can he only request it?

Mr. Hoy: If he requests it, the request will be granted, because, as I say, he may want to help the Commission without disclosing his own business to his competitors.
I was a little surprised when the right hon. Member for Grantham said that he might have taken the matter much further in Committee. He will remember that


the point was raised there, and that we were asked to take steps to protect the people concerned. That is why we did so. All through, what we have sought to do has been to give protection to the individual concerned—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hoy: No. I have listened for a very long time, and have given way on a number of occasions—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is at the moment almost a record number of interventionists. It is a matter for the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor to decide whether or not he will give way. Mr. Hoy.

Mr. Hoy: As I think the House will agree, I have been very generous in giving way—as, indeed, I was throughout the Committee stage—but I must have the right to reply as I wish in order that the House may understand what we are doing.
The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) said, "The Parliamentary Secretary has not convinced me"—but that was not any information. If he had said that I had convinced him that would, indeed, have been information. The hon. Gentleman used that argument so often during the Committee stage—and we had about 39 sittings altogether, and two Second reading debates—it is no longer surprising.
But the hon. Gentleman also said that we do not get support, and he referred in this connection to the first Amendment

on the Notice Paper. I will not go back to that Amendment, but he sought to say that the only support the Minister had on the first Amendment was from the N.F.U., as though the N.F.U. today did not count. I have never taken that view. The hon. Gentleman might be a little more temperate in his language about the N.F.U., although it is not my job to defend that organisation.

What we have sought to do all along, and we have debated this fairly fully and comprehensively, has been to give protection to the individual. In these inquiries we do not always require a legally qualified person of 10 years' standing appointed by the Lord Chancellor. I know a good many laymen in many parts of the country and in this House capable and willing to undertake such work.

I am just a little astonished that hon. Members opposite should pay so little respect to the laymen who are prepared to give their time to do such jobs. These laymen are doing first-class work. The Amendment is unnecessary. I repeat that it would interrupt and hinder the work of the Commission. It is because of that that I hope the House will reject it.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has sat down.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 146.

Division No. 308.]
AYES
[9.46 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Brooks, Edwin
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)


Albu, Austen
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Alldritt, Walter
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Allen, Scholefield
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dell, Edmund


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman
Dempsey, James


Archer, Peter
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dewar, Donald


Armstrong, Ernest
Cant, R. B.
Dickens, James


Ashley, Jack
Carmichael, Neil
Dobson, Ray


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Doig, Peter


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dunnett, Jack


Barnett, Joel
Coleman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Baxter, William
Concannon, J. D.
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bence, Cyril
Conlan, Bernard
Ellis, John


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Faulds, Andrew


Bidwell, Sydney
Crawshaw, Richard
Fernyhough, E.


Bishop, E. S.
Cronin, John
Finch, Harold


Blackburn, F.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Boardman, H.
Dalyell, Tam
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Booth, Albert
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Floud, Bernard


Boston, Terence
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)




Ford, Ben
Lomas, Kenneth
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Forrester, John
Loughlin, Charles
Probert, Arthur


Galpern, Sir Myer
Luard, Evan
Rankin, John


Gardner, Tony
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Reynolds, G. W.


Garrett, W. E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Ginsburg, David
McBride, Neil
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
MacColl, James
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Gray, Or. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Macdonald, A. H.
Rose, Paul


Gregory, Arnold
McGuire, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Grey, Charles (Durham)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rowland, Christopher (Merlden)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mackie, John
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mackintosh, John P.
Sheldon, Robert


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maclennan, Robert
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Hannan, William
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N 'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Harper, Joseph
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Si'kin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Haseldine, Norman
MacPherson, Malcolm
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hazell, Bert
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Slater, Joseph


Heifer, Eric S.
Mapp, Charles
Small, William


Henig, Stanley
Marquand, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mason, Roy
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Hooley, Frank
Mayhew, Christopher
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Horner, John
Mendelson, J. J.
Symonds, J. B.


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Taverne, Dick


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thornton, Ernest


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Molloy, William
Tinn, James


Howie, W.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Urwin, T. W.


Hoy, James
Moyle, Roland
Varley, Eric G.


Huckfield, L.
Neal, Harold
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Newens, Stan
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby,S.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hunter, Adam
Norwood, Christopher
Weitzman, David


Hynd, John
Oakes, Gordon
wellbeloved, James


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,8.)
Ogden, Eric
Whitaker, Ben


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Orme, Stanley
Whittock, William


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.
Oswald, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Williams, Clifford (Abertiliery)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
padley, Walter
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Page Derek (Kingis Lynn)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Paget, R. T.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Lawson, George
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ledger, Ron
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Lee, John (Reading)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Woodbum, Rt. Hn. A.


Lestor, Miss Joan
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred



Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pentland, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Astor, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hawkins, Paul


Baker, W. H. K.
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Batsford, Brian
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Higgins, Terence L.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hill, J. E. B.


Bell, Ronald
Eden, Sir John
Holland, Philip


Bessell, Peter
Elliott, R.W.(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyno, N.)
Hooson, Emlyn


Bitten, John
Eyre, Reginald
Hornby, Richard


Biggs-Daviton, John
Fortescue, Tim
Hunt, John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Foster, Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Black, Sir Cyril
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Iremonger, T. L.


Body, Richard
Gibson-Watt, David
Jopling, Michael


Brahie, Bernard
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Kershaw, Anthony


Brewis, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton




Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Clover, Sir Douglas
Langford-Hott, Sir John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gower, Raymond
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Burden, F. A.
Grant, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Campbell, Gordon
Grieve, Percy
Loveys, W. H.


Carlisle, Mark
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lubbock, Eric


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Clegg, Walter
Gurden, Harold
MacArthur, Ian


Cooke, Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McMaster, Stanley


Corfield, F. V.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maddan, Martin


Costain, A. P.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marten, Neil


Crawley, Aldan
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maude, Angus


Crouch, David
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mawby, Ray







Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J,
Pym, Francis
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wall, Patrick


Miscampbell, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walters, Dennis


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Ward, Dame Irene


Monro, Hector
Russell, Sir Ronald
Weatherill, Bernard


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Webster, David


Murton, Oscar
Stainton, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stodart, Anthony
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Onslow, Cranley
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Worsley, Marcus


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wright, Esmond


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Temple, John M.
Wylie, N. R.


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy



Peel, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Percival, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Jasper More and


Pink, R. Bonner
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

New Clause "A".—(RECOVERY OF POS SESSION OF FARM HOUSES MADE REDUNDANT BY AMALGAMATION.)

Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 45, line 7, at end insert new Clause "A":

'A. (1) This section shall have effect where, after the carrying out of any proposals for amalgamation approved for the purposes of a scheme under section 26 of this Act, a dwelling-house which, at the time when the proposals were submitted, was occupied by a person responsible (whether as owner, tenant, or servant or agent of another) for the control of the farming of any of the land comprised in the amalgamation is let on a regulated tenancy otherwise than to—

(a) a person who ceased to he so responsible as part of the amalgamation, or
(b) a person who is, or at any time was, employed by the landlord in agriculture, or
(c) the widow of any such person as is mentioned in either of the preceding paragraphs.

(2)If—

(a) not later than the commencement of the regulated tenancy, the tenant has been given notice in writing that possession may be recovered under this section, and
(b) apart from the Rent Acts, the landlord would he entitled to recover possession of the dwelling-house, and
(c) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by the landlord in agriculture,
the court shall, in proceedings commenced by the landlord during the period specified in subsection (3) below, make an order for the possession of the dwelling-house, whether or not it would have power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933, and section 5(2) of the Act of 1920 shall not apply in relation to the order.

(3) The period referred to in subsection (2) above is one of five years beginning with the date on which the proposals for the amalgamation were approved or, if occupation of the dwelling-house after the amalgamation continued in, or was first taken by, a person falling within subsection (1)(a) above or his widow, a period expiring three years after the date

on which the dwelling-house next became unoccupied.

(4) In this section—
'the Rent Acts' means the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts 1920 to 1939, or any of those Acts, and 'the Act of 1920' and 'the Act of 1933' mean respectively the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920 and the Rent Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933;
'employed' and 'agriculture' have the same meanings as in the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 or, in Scotland, the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949;
'landlord', tenant 'and tenancy' have the same meanings as in the Act of 1920;
'regulated tenancy' means a tenancy to which the Rent Acts apply by virtue of section 1 of the Rent Act 1965; and
'order for possession', in relation to Scotland, means decree of removing or warrant of ejection or other like order.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Would it be convenient if, at the same time, we discussed Amendment No. 6, Clause 38, in page 45, line 9, at end insert:
and section (Recovery of possession of farmhouses made redundant by amalgamation).

Mr. Peart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, because that is consequential upon the new Clause, which introduces a provision which I am sure will be welcomed by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who divided the House on Report in an attempt to insert a Clause to similar, but wider, effect. We promised at that time to consider carefully whether we could devise suitable legislation to fit into the Bill, and the new Clause is the result.
The object of the new Clause is to ensure that, when a farmhouse becomes redundant as a result of an approved


amalgamation, the landlord shall have a period of grace after the outgoing farmer or his widow vacates the house in which to decide whether or not he needs it for an agricultural employee. It enables the landlord to let such a house of a regulated tenancy with power to regain possession within five years from the date of approval of the amalgamation proposals if the house is vacated in connection with the amalgamation. Alternatively he can do so within three years from the date when it is eventually vacated if an outgoing farmer or his widow remains in occupation after the amalgamation is effected. In both cases, of course, possession must be required in order to put someone into the house who is working or going to work for the landlord in agriculture.
This is a valuable concession. I know that the National Farmers' Union would have preferred a longer or indefinite period for repossession, but in the Government's view the periods specified ought to be long enough for a landlord to make up his mind.
Amendment No. 6 is consequential on the new Clause. It provides that the new Clause shall not extend to Northern Ireland, where the existing law already enables dwelling-houses to be re-possessed in the circumstances specified in the new Clause.

Mr. Godber: My hon. Friends and I welcome this proposal and are very glad indeed that the Government have seen fit to bring forward the new Clause. As the Minister pointed out, my hon. Friends and I moved on Report a new Clause similar in nature, though somewhat wider. However, on that occasion our plea fell on deaf ears. Now we have the wisdom of the Government in introducing this provision.
I regret that there is not a further stage to the Bill because if there were we might get more concessions. However, we welcome this last minute concession, which is a valuable one and one which could prove of real help in a limited number of cases. While the value of the concession should not be over-stated, it could be of help in a limited number of cases.
Turning to the provisions of the Clause, I note the provisions in subsection (3) which appears to be some sort of compromise between what was proposed by a

noble Lord in the other place and what was proposed by my own noble Friend—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Agriculture Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Pearl.]

AGRICULTURE BILL

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Godber: I was saying that subsection (3) seems to be a reasonable compromise between what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, proposed in the other place and what was proposed by my own noble Friend, Lord Nugent of Guildford. Therefore, it is reasonable that we should welcome the Government's conversion to the principle of the Clause. We think that it is a useful addition, and we are glad that the Government have agreed to insert it.

Mr. Bert Hazell: It will be recalled that, when an Amendment similar to this one was proposed on Report, I opposed it on the ground that I was not satisfied by its terms that we would be honouring the undertaking given to farmers who might be occupying their farmhouses after their holdings had been amalgamated. I recognise that this Amendment is a compromise. I am not particularly happy with it, and I made my opinion known on Report. Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept this Amendment. I hope that there will not be repercussions from farmers in this position who find themselves ultimately taken to court for possession of their houses. From the statements which have been made, I gather that that is not likely to occur. To that extent, I give somewhat qualified support to the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44.—(RURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARDS.)

Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 49, line 41, at end insert:
() The overall programme referred to in the preceding subsection is one having regard, among other things, to the special economic considerations and the long-term nature of forestry.

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Government felt that the Amendment was unnecessary, but we have no objection to stating in the Bill the principle embodied in it if that will reassure private foresters about our intentions. The programme for guidance on land use needed in certain areas will have to take into account the economic problems of forestry as well as a number of other things.

Earl of Dalkeith: I do not think that I was unduly sensitive or alone when I got the impression when the Bill was last with us that there was an anti-forestry flavour about it, particularly an anti-private forestry flavour. However, the Bill has emerged from another place as a much better Measure, and that is interesting in contrast to the rather frosty reception which some of my suggestions received in the early hours of the January morning.
As our stubbles grew longer, our tempers became more prickly and we made little progress. Thanks to the excellent work of the noble Lord, Lord Dundee, which was only matched by the commendable though not surprising good sense of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in meeting so many of the essential points of forestry, we now have a far better Bill.
At a time when there is a growing awareness of the wise use of land, it is very necessary that the Government should show that they recognise the importance of forestry and are not lagging behind public opinion in the countryside in according to forestry the proper place which it should have in a Bill of this kind.
The fact that so much effort was required to extract the sort of assurance we have in this Amendment, which results in the Government giving more appropriate recognition to forestry, reveals the great misfortune which arises as a result of agriculture and forestry being

looked after by separate Departments for so long. I hope very much that thanks to the abolition of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources we shall now see a new era of closer co-operation between the various Departments responsible and not only that the same Ministers will be looking after the both subjects, but that they will see to it that officials inside the Departments will not keep themselves in separate watertight compartments but get together as much as possible and discuss the integration of forestry which will arise from this Amendment.
I hope that the Government will not only pledge their word, as they have in this Amendment, but will show that they mean business in the way in which they implement the Bill so far as it concerns forestry.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 49, line 44, at end insert:
and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, their flora and fauna and physiographical features, and any buildings of special interest".

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment will make clear beyond doubt that the amenities to which consideration is to be given by a Board include the flora, fauna and physiographical features as well as buildings of special interest. The form of words used is designed to ensure that the wider interpretation of the words "scientific and historic interest" is not prejudiced by the mention of these specific examples.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 50, line 33, leave out from "to" to the end of line 37 and to insert:
Wales, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales acting jointly".

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps with this Amendment we could take Amendments Nos. 10, 13, 25 and 26.

Mr. Hoy: That will certainly be agreeable to this side of the House, and I believe, to hon. Members opposite.
As from 16th February this year the functions of the Minister of Land and Natural Resources so far as they related to forestry matters in England have been transferred to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This Amendment and those proposed to Clauses 45, 50, and 51 and 53 are necessary to delete the reference to the function of the Minister of Land and Natural Resources in respect of the appointment and duties of rural development boards.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47.—(PROMOTION OF AMALGAMATIONS AND BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS BY RURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARDS.)

Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 52, line 28, after "acquire" to insert "by agreement".

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It has always been the Government's intention that under this Clause the Board should have power to acquire land only by agreement. Hon. Members opposite felt that this intention should be made explicit in the Bill and I undertook on Report to give favourable consideration to this proposal provided that there were no legal complications. I am glad to say that there were no such difficulties and I am happy to put forward this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 49.—(CONTROL AND SALE OF CERTAIN LAND: EXCEPTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 58, line 4, at end insert:
and 'National Parks planning authority' means a local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or part of a National Park".

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to define the "National Parks planning authority", about which it appears there might otherwise be some doubt. I hope that the House will accept this definition.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 51.—(CONTROL OF AFFORESTATION.)

Lords Amendment: No. 14, in page 60, line 37, leave out "to him".

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I suggest that we take Amendment No. 23.

Mr. Mackie: The Amendment is consequential to proposed Amendment No. 23. In fulfilment of an undertaking given to the House on Report, we have reconsidered the desirability of making it possible to transfer a planting licence when ownership of the land passes. The new subsection proposed to be inserted after subsection (4) would enable a licence to be transferred by a simple endorsement procedure. The Amendment to line 37 is consequential on that proposal. I recommend these Amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 15, in page 60, line 41, after "force" insert:
but without prejudice to the enforceability of any condition contained in a licence granted before it was entered into or, as the case may be, took effect".

Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we discuss Amendment No. 16.

Mr. Mackie: It is convenient to discuss Amendment No. 16, Sir.
It was represented to the Government in another place that land which is the subject of a forestry dedication covenant ought not also to be subject to the Board's licensing arrangements on the grounds that the licensing procedure would discourage prospective planters. On consideration, the Government took the view that the arrangements made for consultation between the Board and the Forestry Commission would ensure that any land accepted for dedication by the Commission would also meet the requirements of the Board and that such


land could therefore be exempted from the licensing procedure.
This would be affected by Amendment No. 16. The purpose of Amendment No. 15 is to make it clear that, if land is accepted for dedication after a licence has been issued, any condition of the licence remains enforceable. I hope that the House will find these Amendments acceptable.

Earl of Dalkeith: I am very grateful to the Government for having accepted the Amendment, which goes a long way towards meeting some of the points about which I was very anxious. I therefore withdraw some of the accusations which I made in the early hours of the morning on the preceding stage of the Bill. Amendment No. 16 gives recognition to serious foresters.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 17, in page 60, line 44, leave out "the Forestry Act 1947" and insert:
section 5 of the Forestry Act 1967.

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we take Amendments Nos. 18 and 20.

Mr. Mackie: The Forestry Act, 1967, which received the Royal Assent on 22nd March, 1967, is a consolidating Measure which repealed the 1947 Act together with those of 1919 and 1951, and other Measures.
These Amendments are necessary to substitute references to those Acts by references to the consolidating Act. I invite the House to accept these Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

10.15 p.m.

Lords Amendment: No. 19, in page 61, line 5, after "person" insert:
or, where two or more agricultural units are in the same ownership, more than ten acres in each unit.

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I am sure that the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) will be even more delighted now and will give us a further apology for his hard words in the early hours of the morning, to which he referred a moment or two ago.
Representations were made in another place that landowners or companies owning a number of farms and wishing to plant shelter belts on several of them should not be limited to a total area of 10 acres of unlicensed planting a year.
On reflection, we feel that this is a valid point and that the ten acres should relate to each farm. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Earl of Dalkeith: It may well be that, if it had not been for some of my harsh accusations in the early hours of the morning, we would not have extracted even this meagre concession. It is a meagre concession, but I say "Thank you" for it, nevertheless.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 21, in page 61, line 30, leave out "or".

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment, and I hope that the House will find it acceptable.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 22, in page 61, line 39, leave out from "planting" to end of line 41 and insert:
and any fencing in connection therewith, to be carried out in such a way that access to other land will not be blocked.

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is the result of an undertaking given on Report to look again at the point raised by hon. Members opposite that, when trees are planted, it is usually the fencing rather than the planting which blocks access to other


land. I hope that it satisfies the Opposition and will be acceptable to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 24, in page 62, line 31, leave out "two" and insert "one".

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The House will recall that, on Report, hon. Members opposite pressed for a reduction in the penalty for non-compliance with the licensing procedure or the breach of any condition of a licence. Bearing in mind that this subsection specifies the maximum fine which can be imposed, we did not feel able to accept a reduction from £200 to £50. However, after considering the further representations made in another place, I am happy to be able to tell the House that we have reached the conclusion that a figure of £100 would be more appropriate.
I hope that hon. Members will feel able to accept this Amendment. It is the old story of splitting the difference.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 60.—(GRANTS FOR PURPOSES CONNECTED WITH CO-OPERATIVE ACTIVITIES.)

Lords Amendment: No. 27, in page 70, line 15, at end insert:
which recommendation and approval may be given before, or in such classes of cases as the Ministers may direct, after the carrying out of the proposals".

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment designed to rectify the unintentional omission of a standard provision relating to schemes of grants, which already appears in Clauses 26, 30 and 40 of the Bill—to be precise, at 26(6,a), 30(3,a) and 40(5,a). As amended, the Clause would permit authority to be given for work to be started, without prejudicing subsequent payment of grant, on proposals that had been submitted to the Central Council but had not yet received

its recommendation or approval by Ministers. This sort of arrangement is provided for in many grant schemes to avoid unnecessary delays in allowing work to start on proposals. The issue of an authority to start work does not, of course, commit Ministers to pay grant if the proposals are not subsequently recommended and approved.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 28, in page 71, line 11, leave out "by them".

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a technical Amendment rather than one of substance. It is intended that the scheme of grants to be made under this Clause shall provide for the Minister of Agriculture alone to pay to the Central Council money for them to pay out in grants. This being so, the Ministers—the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland—could not be said, when recovering grant under Clause 60(4), to be doing so in respect of grant paid "by them".
That is the reason for cutting out "by them"; it is only the Minister who will recover grants.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause B.—(APPLICATION OF CAPITAL MONEY IN PAYMENT OF IMPROVEMENT RENTCHARGES.)

Lords Amendment: No. 29, in page 78, line 37, at end insert new Clause "B":
B. Section 73(1)(xiii) of the Settled Land Act 1925 (under which capital money arising under that Act may be applied in the redemption of improvement rentcharges) shall, in its application to any charge created under the Improvement of Land Act 1864 in respect of an improvement benefiting agricultural land, and its application by virtue of section 3(3) of the Agricultural Credits Act 1932 to the repayment secured by any mortgage, have effect as if the reference to redemption included a reference to discharging as it falls due so much of any periodical payment as represents repayment of capital.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
As the law stands at present, the wording of Section 73(1)(xiii) of the Settled Land Act, 1925, prevents the use of capital money arising from a settled


estate for the repayment of improvement rentcharges by instalments.
It was represented to the Government in another place that this provision has a particularly unfortunate effect so far as agriculture is concerned. When a loan for an agricultural improvement is secured by a mortgage which is repayable by instalments it can, under Section 3(2) of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1932, be treated as an improvement rentcharge.
The 1925 Act allows capital money to be used for the redemption of a rent-charge of this kind, but the word "redemption" has been held to refer only to a compounding of future payments and not to the repayment of the capital element by normal instalments. The tenant for life must, therefore, repay both the interest and the capital element of such instalments either out of his income or with free capital. This can have the effect of discouraging tenants for life from borrowing money in order to carry out agricultural improvements.
Parliament may well have intended Section 73 of the 1925 Act to reproduce the effect of Section 1 of the Settled Land Acts (Amendment) Act, 1887, which covered both redemption and any other provision for the payment of rentcharges. If it had done so, there would, of course, have been power to use capital money for repaying rentcharges by instalments.
It is not possible to remedy this defect for all purposes in an Agriculture Bill, but we consider that it would be an advantage to do so as far as agricultural estates are concerned. That is what this new Clause aims to do. It will enable capital money arising from a settled estate to be used for meeting the capital element in repayments when a rent-charge relating to an improvement for the benefit of agricultural land is paid off by instalments.
I hope that I shall be forgiven for delaying the Committee, but I thought that it was right to put that on the record so that people should understand the purpose of the new Clause. I commend the Amendment to the House.

Mr. Godber: I rise merely to thank the Minister for explaining the new Clause so lucidly, but express surprise that he did not explain it to us earlier in the passage of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 71.—(DISQUALIFICATION FOR HOUSE OF COMMONS ETC.)

Lords Amendment: No. 31, in page 81, line 22, at end insert "in Northern Ireland".

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
By this Amendment a Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament would be disqualified only from taking an appointment as a member of a rural development board in Northern Ireland. He would be able to accept an appointment to a board in Great Britain.
It seems preferable that this should he made clear in the Act, rather than by an Order in Council setting up a board in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Godber: I rise to thank the hon. Gentleman for this most important Amendment. All of us, and particularly my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland, wish to know precisely where we stand in regard to this matter.
I rise also to say to the Minister, on this last Amendment, that we are grateful for the assistance which has been given in regard to a number of Amendments. He has done something to ameliorate his earlier position. We congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having got his Bill, and we hope that it will prove of some real help.

Mr. Peart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I thank, too, all those who have contributed to the Bill. It has been a long journey, and many people have played their part in seeing it through. I am grateful to everyone for having done so.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Agriculture Bill; Mr. Godber, Mr. Hoy, Mr. Mackie, Mr. Peart and Mr. Stodart; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Peart.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA

10.27 p.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas): I beg to move,
That the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) (Amendment) Order 1967, dated 15th March 1967, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.
This Order is an essential step to tighten up the enforcement machinery of our existing sanctions. It is a reminder to the people of Southern Rhodesia, both black and white, that until legality is restored there the sanctions grip will get tighter and tighter.
A little while ago the Government's attention was drawn to the risk of United Kingdom persons and companies being involved in transactions which, though they were not themselves forbidden by our existing legislation, might well facilitate the contravention or evasion of that legislation. Having regard to our obligations under the Security Council Resolution, it was essential therefore for us to take whatever steps we could to prevent our nationals and companies from being parties to such transactions.
The central provision of this Order is in Article 3 which amends the Order of 1966 by inserting in it a new Article, to be numbered as Article 8A. The House will see that this confers powers on the Secretary of State in relation to the transfer of the ownership of certain property overseas where it appears to him that such transfer might facilitate the contravention or evasion of the Order of 1966, or of the Petroleum Order of 1965.
The property in question is property in which persons who are subject to the Article—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member will help me. Is he moving the second Order, rather than the first one?

Mr. Thomas: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I moved the Order dealing with prohibited trade and dealings, and you did not correct me at the time. Would you like me to deal with the other Order first.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member would deal with the Orders in their correct order.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to move,
That the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia Order 1967, dated 23rd March 1967, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st March, be approved.
I am sorry about the confusion, Mr. Speaker. Both Orders are equally good.
This Order amends the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia Order, 1965, which, as the House will recall, was made in December, 1965, and approved by Parliament in the same month. The Reserve Bank of Rhodesia established in 1964 by an Act of the Southern Rhodesia Legislature entitled the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia Act, 1964. This provided for the affairs of the bank to be run by a board of directors consisting of a governor, a deputy governor and no fewer than nor more than seven other directors.
After the illegal declaration of independence in 1965, it was thought necessary, as the House will recall, to take steps to prevent the then existing board of directors of the bank in Salisbury from continuing to exercise authority in the name of the bank, in particular as regards the fairly large accounts held by the bank outside Southern Rhodesia. Accordingly, the Order was made in December, 1965.
That Order suspended from office persons who immediately before the commencement of the Order were the governor, the deputy governor and other directors of the Reserve Bank. The Secretary of State was empowered, so long as the Order remained in force, to appoint other persons to be the governor, deputy governor and other directors of the bank. Persons so appointed were to constitute for the time being the board of directors of the bank. The governor appointed was Sir Sydney Caine, who has served with great distinction, and the other directors were Viscount Harcourt, Lord Poole, Sir Norman Kipping, Sir Gordon Munro and Sir Siegmund Warburg.
The primary function of the board thus appointed was to locate and then assert its authority over the external assets of the Reserve Bank. The purpose of this was to prevent the illegal régime from applying them towards the furtherance of


the rebellion and to preserve them for the people of Rhodesia as a whole pending the restoration of constitutional government. The operation of locating and preserving the external assets of the bank having thus been completed, it was decided some time ago that it was no longer necessary to maintain a full board of directors of the bank. [Laughter.] If hon. Members opposite will contain themselves for a moment, they will discover that the Order before the House makes adequate provision for the appointment of a Governor and Trustee, which is his title, to fulfil the duties which have hitherto been completed by the governors of the bank.
I should like to pay public tribute to the high sense of duty of Sir Sydney Caine and his colleagues, who have given distinguished service and who have taken no remuneration for their public services while acting in this responsible capacity.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: How successful were they?

Mr. R. T. Paget: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Thomas: I have given way to my hon. and learned Friend before, to my sorrow.
The Governor and Trustee is empowered, and in a sense, required, to take such steps as seem to him necessary or expedient to carry on the business of the bank, or to enable it to be carried on. It is probable that when the time comes for the lawful government to be restored in Rhodesia there will be a transitional period when this provision becomes of major importance.
There are just two other comments that I would add. The first is to explain that, though I have said that the desirability of making this change was realised before the end of last year, and was agreed with the then existing board, the process of putting the change into operation was overtaken by the litigation in the German High Court, over the bank notes, which the illegal régime in Rhodesia was seeking to have printed and exported to Rhodesia for its use. In order to avoid confusing this litigation, it was agreed by all concerned that it would be desirable to postpone this

change until that matter had been disposed of. Hence the fact that the Order was not made until the end of last month.
The second comment is to reiterate the deep gratitude we feel to those who have served as directors—and I include Sir Gordon Munro, who retired some time ago, due to ill-health, but who gave invaluable service. When lawful government is restored and happier times return to Rhodesia, the funds of the Reserve Bank will be available for the purpose or rebuilding and restoring the prosperity and sound financial position which Rhodesia formerly enjoyed.
I hope that the House will register its approval of this Order tonight in the knowledge that we are giving a message to the people of Rhodesia that—[Interruption.]—I have already said to the black people and the white people that we are determined to see that the machinery of sanctions operates successfully.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. Is this the only Order that we are discussing, or is The Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) (Amendment) Order 1967, which has already been moved by the Minister being discussed with it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): This is the only Order being discussed at the moment.

Mr. Richard Wood: The hon. Gentleman has explained, fairly briefly, the purpose of this Order under which, I understand, the governor and trustee will replace the governor and board of directors and also provision is made for an alternate to the governor and trustee. I think that we are entitled to a little more explanation from the hon. Gentleman as to why this change is necessary. Why, in his own words, has he now discovered that it is no longer necessary to maintain a full board?
We understand from the Order that Sir Sydney Caine will continue. I should like to ask when are we likely to have an announcement about the alternate to Sir Sydney Caine? Before we part with the governor and directors of the bank, it would be appropriate—and I am sure that my hon. Friends would like to know how successful the Reserve


Bank has been in what was presumably its primary objective, the control of Rhodesian Government reserves under the control of the Reserve Bank? These amounted, I think, to about £22 million at the time of the declaration of independence.
The hon. Gentleman skirted rather briefly round the German question, but we should like to know what the outcome was of the dispute over the Rhodesian banknotes printed in Germany. If, as it appears, there has been a settlement and the notes remain in Germany, what compensation was paid for this action? My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked the Chief Secretary a week ago:
… what has been the final result of action … in Germany …; and what has been the total cost of this operation.
The Chief Secretary replied that
… the banknotes will not be delivered to Southern Rhodesia except on the directions of the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia. No significant charge on public funds has been involved."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c 154–5.]
We should like to know the exact charge that has been involved, because then we may be able to judge for ourselves whether it is significant or not.
There are some other questions to be asked before the board passes out of existence. Was the board ever given legal recognition abroad, and, under its new management, what recognition will the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia receive? Secondly, are we to receive any report of the board's activities in the last 18 months?
A question of greater importance, and of great interest to a number of my hon. Friends, is: will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to clarify the present position about the payment of interest on Rhodesian stocks? I understand that the last payment was on 21st November, 1965. The bulk of the £67 million stock outstanding is held in London, and the interest in a full year is about £3¼ million. Some of the stock was due for redemption last year, but has not been redeemed.
The original prospectus for the stock contained a disclaimer for any responsibility by the British Government for interest or redemption, but surely this position has been changed since the dis-

missal, by the Governor, of the Rhodesian Government, and the appointment of the new board of the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia, the arrangement which is now to be modified by this Order.
In December, 1965, my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations
… why, although by virtue of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 he has power to direct the payment of interest on Rhodesian public debt in this country, he has permitted default.
The then Commonwealth Secretary replied that the United Kingdom
… have not assumed the government of that country and have not in any way succeeded either to the assets or to the liabilities of the Government of Southern Rhodesia."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 233–4.]
But on 15th November, 1965, the Attorney-General said:
… the Government of the United Kingdom maintains responsibility and jurisdiction in respect of Rhodesia."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 689.]
In view of the fact that the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia in the last 18 months must undoubtedly have gained control of some of the assets held by the original board, can the Government really claim that the bank, either under its present or its future management, has no responsibility whatsoever for paying interest on these stocks? Can interest not be paid out of reserve funds held by the Reserve Bank in this country? As the Minister of State will be aware, there are a number of cases of hardship among those who bought Rhodesian stock in good faith and have not received any interest on it.
Moreover, the Government have accepted some responsibility for the damage to the Zambian economy caused by U.D.I. and have put forward nearly £14 million for development of new routes. It is illogical simultaneously to refuse to recompense citizens of the United Kingdom for comparable damage they have suffered. Whatever the legal niceties, it is incontrovertible that the British Government have assumed responsibility for the Government of Rhodesia and the hon. Gentleman can hardly argue that the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia is not under the control of the British Government in view of this Order.
The main Order—No. 2049—which, in 1965, appointed the Governor and Directors of the Bank, was part of the first sanctions imposed by this country after U.D.I. Those sanctions remained at that time firmly under the control of the British Government and the Conservative Party on that occasion did not oppose the Order. But we really must press the hon. Gentleman to take this opportunity to answer the serious questions I have put and those which no doubt my hon. Friends wish to put.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: As one who deplores action taken to injure the economy of Rhodesia, upon which both the black and the white Rhodesians live—and injury to an economy is always hardest upon the poorest section of the population which, in Rhodesia, is, of course, the black—I found it difficult to oppose the original Order which, so far from injuring the Rhodesian economy, conferred a great benefit upon it. This was because the Order had the effect of seizing between £8 million and £11 million of assets and relieving over £18 million of liabilities. It seemed to me to be some compensation to the Rhodesians in the circumstances.
Whilst I deplore injury to the Rhodesian economy, I equally deplore injury to our own. After all, if we are to be a world financial centre, it is important that the world should feel that we act as bankers and financiers rather than as politicians. The extent of the damage, for instance—and here I must plead an interest as a Lloyds underwriter—which we have done to our world insurance business by defaulting—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the scope of the debate on this Order is very limited. We are merely concerned with the provisions of this Order for the appointment of the Governor and Trustees of the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia. We cannot enter into a general discussion of sanctions.

Mr. Paget: I entirely agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely seeking to indicate the various aspects in which this sort of performance injures our own credit. I referred simply as a passing example to insurance. The same applies to banking.

There is also the injury that has been done to the credit of the Commonwealth as a whole.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot go into the question of injury to the credit as a whole. We are concerned merely with the constitution of the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia.

Mr. Paget: The right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) referred to Rhodesian bond holders and our failure to meet that obligation, and that was the point with which I was dealing. I was saying that, when one fails to meet the obligations of a Commonwealth loan—this is the first Commonwealth default—one is doing grave injury to the credit of an institution in which our national interest is involved. I therefore hope, as I have all along, that this Rhodesian folly can be wound up as soon as possible.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The Minister of State is a compassionate man and he cannot have liked the message which his brief commanded him to deliver to the people of Rhodesia, white and black: that the screw would be tightened, that sanctions would be intensified—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Hon. Members may say "Hear, hear," but—

Mr. George Thomas: I trust I said, "Until legality is restored."

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The policy which the hon. Gentleman is putting forward is that unemployment and want should be created and misery spread throughout Rhodesia until the Rhodesians submit to the will of him and his right hon. Friends. This reminds me of words used by Chatham in a not dissimilar situation:
You may ravage but you will not conquer.
The Order is worthier of "Alice in Wonderland" than of a responsible British Government.
The so-called board which has been set up has been from the start a farce, upon which the Government are now apparently ringing down the curtain. The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the members of the board. I do not dissent from that. They deserve the sympathy of the


House for having made themselves utterly ridiculous by assuming the duties which the Government put upon them.
Apparently, Sir Sydney Caine is now to be governor and trustee. We may ask, what has he done? What has the superseded board done? One thing Sir Sydney did, shortly before Christmas, he instituted civil proceedings in Germany and obtained the temporary injunction to restrain the printers, and South African Airways and British European Airways, from dispatching 28 tons of banknotes to Salisbury.
The notes were signed by a Mr. Bruce, who is described as Governor of the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia. The difference between him and Sir Sydney Caine is that Mr. Bruce, however illegal, has a bank to govern and a board to preside over. On 27th January, Dr. Adam, who was chairman of the civil court in Frankfurt, decided that the British Government's decision to appoint the board which is now to be dissolved had but one aim, to dissolve the board in Salisbury. I do not think that that object has been achieved.
The judge went on to say that the board in London which is to be dissolved could only be described as the legal custodian and not as the responsible administrative body of the bank. The court therefore decided that the export of these notes could be permitted. It went on to say that this did not mean that it acknowledged the Rhodesian régime to have legal authority. I do not know how this case will end, but the fact remains that the court in Germany has thrown doubt on the whole basis of the London board and I therefore ask whether this is the reason why this board is to be dissolved by this Order. This case in Germany is one of the factors which is paving the way for the international recognition of independent Rhodesia.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) seemed to be advancing the extraordinary proposition that Her Majesty's Government should give up assets to a rebellious and illegal régime against which we are at present applying sanctions under the auspices of the United Nations. It is strange that when assets belonging to such a régime are held

in this country, the hon. Gentleman should be suggesting that we should gratuitously give them away. I trust that, having made a speech of that sort, he will follow his conscience and vote against the Order.
Her Majesty's Government are only doing what they are obliged to do; namely, to prevent the illegal régime from using these assets because they are assets which must be preserved not only for the 5 per cent. of Rhodesians who at present hold sway in Rhodesia—a régime which employs censorship and all the other well-known totalitarian methods to survive—but for the people of Rhodesia as a whole; the 95 per cent. as well as the 5 per cent.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—with whom, as I have said in the past, I share a room in the House but whose views on Rhodesia I could not possibly share—said some time ago that sterling would suffer as a result of our action, but sterling seems to be riding high. My hon. and learned Friend has provided no evidence for his propostion and all the evidence shows that, far from what he described would happen, other countries recognise our international obligations and why we are taking this action. The standing of sterling and of Britain in the world would fall if we did not take this stand, and that is why I cannot accept my hon. and learned Friend's proposition.
As for the civil proceedings in Germany, we are only doing what we must do in respect of what are, in effect, forged and illegal notes produced by an illegal régime. If Chigwell were to declare independence and produce its own bank notes, that money would be regarded as illegal tender and my right hon. and learned Friend might decide to take suitable action over the forgery that had taken place.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The German court did not take that view in respect of forged bank notes.

Mr. Rose: The fact remains that the illegal régime has no right in law to produce bank notes of its own. The fact is that, although the hon. Gentleman's friend may have a bank in Rhodesia, he has that bank only by virtue of an illegal action. It is a bank which he holds


because it has been taken over by a régime which cannot be recognised and has no validity. There again, Her Majesty's Government are only doing what they have to do in the interests of international law.
I trust the right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, with one hon. and learned exception, will have no hesitation in approving the Order and the philosophy behind it.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has shown a proper respect for the law, but hardly for the realities of the situation, and that shows the absurdity of the position in which the Government find themselves. They have appointed a distinguished body of people who seem to have done nothing. I hope that, before the end of the evening, we shall find just what they have done. They are now to be dismissed, and one man is to be left in charge. But the balance which must be struck is one between the absurd position into which we are moving and the losses to this country caused by sanctions on Rhodesia. I know that this is outside the precise order of the debate, but it must be borne in mind when the House measures how ludicrous this procedure is.
The hon. Gentleman almost gave the impression that, by this action, we have prevented any form of banking taking place in Rhodesia, but that is far from so. The Rhodesians seem to be conducting their banking without the help of Sir Sydney Caine and his distinguished colleagues, who perhaps occasionally communicate their highly intelligent comment to them, almost better than the Bank of England. The Rhodesian pound today is at par. Frequently, the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes here and says with great excitement, "One point over", or "One point under", gilts go up, everyone gets very excited, and Government morale rises. But in Rhodesia, the pound is at par. What is more, the Rhodesian travel allowance, which is not being prevented by the machinations of Sir Sydney Caine, Lord Poole, Mr. Warburg, Uncle Tom Cobley and other distinguished gentlemen in the City, is £150. One cannot help comparing that with the British travel allowance of £50. Rhodes-

ians travelling out of their country are allowed £150, without a question being asked, and businessmen can have any amount. That is a measure of the absurdity which this Government are piling on the House and on our people by pursuing a policy which clearly has already broken down.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), who felt that he had a sense of duty to speak up from the benches opposite—the only hon. Member to do so so far—pointed out two matters. He referred, first, to the number of countries who were supporting the Government's policy. I wish that he had the opportunity to go to Rhodesia and walk into Meikles Hotel on a Saturday afternoon, and discover how soon it was before he heard a word of English spoken. Whether they are on holiday or not, I do not know, but it is full of people speaking French, German, Japanese, Italian, and so forth, and one assumes that they have something to do with Rhodesian trade.
The second point which he made was answered effectively by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). The reason why we are not going to follow our consciences into the Lobby against this Order is that we do not really—[Interruption.] The effect of the Order is to make sure that Rhodesia does not have to service her assets in overseas debts.
The Minister of State, with his usual amiability, expressed a point of view which I doubt whether he can find it in his heart to believe. He did it as nicely as we are accustomed to hearing him do it. The questions he has been asked are effective ones. We on this side hope that they will be answered before the debate ends.
There was a governor and there were directors. They have been referred to by name. They are to be replaced by a governor and trustee, which presumably means that there is not any longer any point in keeping the board going. What have these distinguished people been doing during the time they have been responsible or the Minister holds they have been responsible for the affairs of the bank?
The new Article 3(f) reads:
it shall be the general duty of the Governor and Trustee"—
that is, the person who has been substituted for the board—
to take such steps as may appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of preserving and protecting the property of the Bank wherever such property may be found"—
it is to be found principally in the form of real estate in Salisbury—
and for the purpose of preventing unauthorised persons from acting or purporting to act on behalf of the Bank or from disposing of the property of the Bank or from acting in any way in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Bank.
The bank is physically located in Salisbury. The premises of the bank are in Salisbury. The bank is at this moment being run by Mr. Bruce. It is being run very efficiently. How does the Minister of State suppose that the new arrangement will in any way differ from what existed before?
Perhaps I am in no position, any more than the Minister is, to produce a fact or figure about the conduct of the bank's affairs, but I would hazard the guess that the bank's affairs are being well conducted and that the position is roughly this. Exports and re-exports for 1966 amount to £97 million. Imports into Rhodesia amount to about £85 million, leaving a favourable visible balance of about £12 million. Gold production in excess is about £7 million, which means an improvement in Rhodesia's balance of payments of about £19 million. Taking the invisibles which are the direct result of the Order, there is an immediate improvement of about £15 million, which means the interest and dividends on foreign investment. Therefore, for 1966, if my figures are correct, Rhodesia will finish with a surplus of about £7 million on current payments. If this is so, nobody can say that the affairs of the Reserve Bank are being conducted in a way which is any way harmful to the interests of Rhodesia at the moment. I do not know what the governor and trustee will do about it or what effect he will have. If what I have recited is untrue, I hope that we shall have a denial, or at least an explanation of why the governor and trustee is to be appointed.
The new Article 3(e) provides:

the Governor and Trustee and the Alternate to the Governor and Trustee shall hold office upon such conditions as to remuneration and allowances as may from time to time be determined by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Governor and Trustee".
What consultations have taken place so far? The Minister of State told us that the governor and directors had done their work for nothing, whatever work they have done. Are there to be more consultations about the duties of the governor and trustee and the alternate to the governor and trustee? What does the governor and trustee reckon his job is worth? If this passage means anything, we should have an explanation. All the speeches made by my right hon. and hon. Friends show up the debate for the charade it is. There is no other purpose in bringing these things forward.
The Order forms part of a policy which we on this side, all jokes apart—and this is a joke; let us make no mistake about it—regard as a disaster, as an irresponsible idiocy, a policy which our grandchildren will look back on and wonder what took the Government of this country at this time to present to us something which will damage our interests and those of the people involved in Rhodesia to the extent that it does.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I am not surprised that the Minister of State moved the other Order by mistake. There is at least something to be said about the other Order, which is a rather significant one, and I understand why he wanted to get on with that.
The Order which is before us is a mixture of farce, paradox and tragedy—tragedy, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) indicated, because of the damage that it and its predecessors together do to British financial reputation in the world. This mixture of banking and politics, banking and vindictiveness, is thoroughly damaging and thoroughly unworthy of this country, which has for so long been the centre of financial transactions in the world. By these Orders, we have given notice to everyone, of every country, that everything is subservient to Government policy and that we shall not hesitate to lay our hands on other people's money if we think that it will advance the immediate short-term policies of the Administration in this country.
It is a paradox because, as some of my hon. Friends and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton have pointed out, the effect of the Order and its predecessor is simply to confer a financial benefit upon the Government of Rhodesia, and it is a farce because these distinguished gentlemen have been made monkeys of by the Prime Minister here. The whole reason for the Order is that all but one of them are unwilling to occupy so ridiculous a position any longer.
One can be misled by the Explanatory Note to the Order. The Order is not merely to replace the governor and the board by a single governor and trustee. The amending Order is about twice as long as the principal Order because it sets out in considerable detail the function which the governor and trustee is to fulfil.
The principal Order of 1965 could be short because it merely said that the governor and the directors appointed under it would exercise the functions of the board of the bank under the Southern Rhodesia Act. The present Order not merely replaces the governor and board by a single governor and trustee, but also makes it clear that the remit of Sir Sydney Caine in his new function is that of a night watchman.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: A what?

Mr. Bell: A night watchman.

Mr. Hastings: Without a fire.

Mr. Bell: Without a fire. Of course, he is not expected any longer to run the bank. After all, six distinguished gentlemen have been not running the bank in one of the famous non-events of the party opposite for the last year. Now, that position is being recognised. To that extent at least, I welcome the Order.
The Minister of State and his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) spoke about an illegal régime and tightening the screws. In passing, how does this amending Order tighten any screws? It might be described by some a a notable loosening of screws. At least, the hon. Gentleman thought fit to talk about tightening the screw because of the illegality of the régime. I put this question to the

Minister of State: if this is a tightening of the screw because the régime is illegal, are we have a similar Order every time there is an illegal régime? Is one coming forward for the illegal régime in Sierra Leone, which is a rebellion against the Crown? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course, it is. Are we to have an Order taking over their assets and sweeping away the board of the Bank of Sierra Leone, appointing a governor and trustee? It is an illegal régime, a rebellion against the British Crown.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot go into the affairs of Sierra Leone on this Order.

Mr. Bell: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is precisely my point. We ought not to go into their affairs, just as we ought not to go into the affairs of the parallel case.

Mr. George Thomas: If I have your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that Sierra Leone is an independent country. Rhodesia is a Colony.

Mr. Bell: I am not sure how far I can go in stripping the veneer off that shallow intervention. It is a question of the Crown and rebellion against the Crown. When the Lieutenant-Governor is locked up—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is quite irrelevant. The only question under this Order is whether we should substitute a governor and trustee for a governor and board of directors.

Mr. Bell: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will understand that I was to some extent led away by the Minister of State. If he claims that he was to some extent led away by me, I point out in reply that this amending Order defines the functions of the governor and trustee whom it institutes, referring to one of his functions as being to protect the assets of the Bank of Rhodesia against people purporting to have control over it. In a sense, therefore, as this Order, for the first time, defines those functions in express terms, it raises for our debate tonight the substantive point as to whether we are right to usurp those functions.
Strictly speaking, therefore, though I have no wish to enlarge the debate in


that way, I am in order in what I was saying and in making the comparison with other régimes elsewhere in the world. However, I shall not go into that, save to make the broad and sweeping point that half the members of the United Nations are illegal régimes. The Minister of State, therefore, ought not to lean too heavily for his amending Order tonight on that very founderous argument.
That is all I wish to say. In a way, I welcome the Order. Inasmuch as it cuts this farcical board down from six to one, it is a further step in the achievement of national unity against the Prime Minister, which I very much look forward to, in this whole Rhodesia business.

11.15 p.m.

Sir Knox Cunningham: We have heard a great number of points in the debate tonight, and I shall not repeat them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] If hon. Members opposite wish to hear me speak at length, I shall be delighted to do so.
The Minister of State opened the debate by saying that the governor, deputy governor and the other directors appointed under the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia Order, 1965, were there to preserve the external assets of the bank. What have they done? Have they preserved the assets? Have they carried on any banking? What have they done? Under the Order we shall do away with them and substitute a governor and trustee. Why? Is it because the directors have said that they are resigning?
Under the Order, the Secretary of State will appoint a governor and trustee who will exercise his functions "either in Southern Rhodesia or elsewhere." What functions can he and will he exercise in Southern Rhodesia? Surely his only functions can be exercised elsewhere, and what will they be?

Mr. John Lee: rose—

Sir Knox Cunningham: I am sorry; I shall not give way at the moment.
Under paragraph (i) of the new Article 3 of the principal Order,
the Secretary of State may from time to time give the Governor and Trustee such general or special directions relating to the policy of the Bank or relating to the exercise of the powers and duties of the Governor and

Trustee as he may think fit, and the Governor and Trustee shall comply with any such directions.
That means that the governor and trustee is the creature of the Minister. He will be given his directions, his riding orders, and he will carry them out. What is the point of that? It is a farce. Why should the Minister not act? Why appoint this stooge to act as the Minister's creature? I hope that we shall have a reply to those questions.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The board of the bank we are discussing was set up in 1965 with a great fanfare of trumpets. All these important people in the City were to form part of the economic machine which was to crush the frightened little men in Salisbury a few months before they were deprived of oil—the futility of which we are to discuss in the second Order.
It is therefore relevant to see what the bank has done since it had that task imposed on it by the Government. Its first action, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) pointed out, was to seize the Rhodesian sterling reserves in this country. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, they were estimated at between £8 million and £11 million. A direct result of this action was that the Rhodesian Government defaulted on all the loans and the servicing of debts on money raised on the London market, which was estimated at £160 million.
The consequences of that act have been referred to in an article in the Financial Times of 20th March this year, which I commend to the attention of the Minister of State. I shall not read it to the House, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman has read it, because it is very salutary. It says that in 1965 the Rhodesian visible trading surplus was about £42 million and there was a deficit on "invisibles" of £28 million.
What happened as a result of the first action taken by the bank was that the income normally paid to individual citizens in this country from Rhodesia, totalling about £10 million, was not paid, and a debt payment of £9 million normally paid by Rhodesia to this country was also not paid. Therefore, the net result of the bank's action was to present Rhodesia with £19 million. One of our


most responsible financial newspapers produced those figures, which I have quoted.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that if that action had not been taken the Rhodesian Government would not have defaulted on their international liabilities? Will he bear in mind their action in relation to their liabilities under the International Bank agreement?

Mr. Wall: As far as I know, the Rhodesian Government have not defaulted on any loans which were not said to be the responsibility of the British Government. In other words, they maintained that as the British Government have deprived Rhodesia of the reserves held in her name in this country, understandably, she refused to service any international loans normally serviced through these sterling balances. This seems to be a normal and sensible action deriving from the course of events.
But there is more to it than that, because surely the seizure of reserves from a country with whom we are at the moment in dispute is going to make it more problematical whether other countries will continue to retain large sterling balances in this country I know it is never stated what sterling balances are maintained in this country by other countries, but I am prepared to take a wager with the Minister that the sums have been considerably reduced since the action of the alleged Rhodesian Reserve Bank.
But perhaps of more direct interest is the effect on British citizens. I commend to the House a paragraph in the editorial of the Daily Telegraph, of 20th March, in which it said:
It was supposed that where Britain could assume a responsibility she would discharge it normally. When she took over the Rhodesian Reserve Bank it was surely reasonable to suppose that its sterling assets would be used to honour its obligations. But Mr. Callaghan has stated that he 'cannot accept any responsibility for the liabilities of the Rhodesian Government'.
Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman repeated that statement in a Written Answer to me last week. The article went on to say:
It is, in fact, a British chairman who is presiding over the default on dividends with the approval of the Chancellor",

and that is having serious repercussions for many British citizens who are now deprived of their income because of the direct action of this bank whose future we are now discussing.
I propose to make only one other reference to a quotation, and this sums up the position very well. This is from a gentleman called Mr. Beney, a Q.C., who wrote to the Daily Telegraph on 16th March, and in his final paragraph he said:
It is a double injustice when the Government of the country first encourages its citizens to invest their money in the other country's loans; then tries to destroy that country's economy in such a way that the security for those loans disappears. And then expresses its sympathy with the victims.
I think that that describes what has happened to British bond holders of Rhodesian stock due to the bank's action.
There is a third effect of the action taken by the Rhodesian Reserve Bank. I am referring now to the bank notes which were to be printed in Germany. I understand that they are being printed elsewhere, so they will not be denied to the Rhodesian Government. What happened was that the British Government went to law in Germany and lost the case in two separate courts and finally had to make a settlement out of court. I would like to know how much that settlement cost. The Press reported that it cost £180,000. I asked the Chancellor the other day, and received the reply that it was a comparatively small amount, or words to that effect. I hope that when the Minister replies to this debate he will tell us how much this out-of-court settlement cost the British taxpayer.
What work will this board now do? We had a most impressive board to begin with. We are now to have a board consisting of one man. What work is the board supposed to do during the forthcoming year? This Order puts the board of the Rhodesian Reserve Bank in suspended animation. This organisation has done nothing but disservice to Britain's good name during the time it has been in existence, and I am glad to see it buried.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I would like to ask the Minister of State how much longer we on this side of the House are to have to sit and listen to the hypocrisy and humbug which Members of the Government keep spouting at


us. It really is remarkable. We had the Prime Minister today telling us that we on this side of the House were guilty of subverting law and order in Rhodesia, but it is right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who are trying to overthrow the legally elected Government of that country.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: On a point of order. I think I am correct in contending that paragraph 167(x) of the Manual of Procedure rules against the use of seditious or treasonable terms by any Member of the House. Quite obviously, since the illegal régime in Salisbury is in a state of active rebellion against the Crown, any statement by a Member of the House that that régime constitutes a legally elected Government must amount to the condition which is prohibited by that paragraph.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) said, and I am aware of the paragraph to which the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) has referred. I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Albans will confine his remarks within the rules laid down in the Manual of Procedure.

Mr. Goodhew: I remind the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), who was so rapid in getting to his feet, that I merely quoted the Prime Minister, who earlier today accused hon. Members on this side of the House of seeking to subvert law and order in Rhodesia. I was saying, and I say it again, that it is the Government who are trying to bring about the downfall of a government which has been legally elected in Rhodesia. That was the phrase I used. If the hon. Member looks in HANSARD tomorrow he will find that he was a little too rapid in getting to his feet.
The Minister of State is greatly respected for his sincerity, and it grieves me to hear him using the phrases he has used this evening about the funds being used to restore the economy of Rhodesia when it returned to legality. These funds belong to all the people of Rhodesia and it is not for the Government to say that they will hold on to them for the time being.
When the Minister of State talks about restoring the economy eventually does he realise that it is hon. Members opposite

who are doing their best to destroy it? It is sheer hypocrisy to come to this House this evening and talk so glibly about trying to preserve these funds and about the restoration of the economy when they have done their best to destroy it.
It is not only the Government who are trying to destroy it. Having failed to do so on their own they are trying to bring all the countries of the world into joining them. Well, they have failed so far.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot go into all that. In this Order we are concerned only with whether there should be a governor and board of directors or a single governor and trustee in this bank.

Mr. Goodhew: I was mentioning this in passing in explanation of what I regard as the hypocrisy of hon. Members opposite.
It seems to me quite remarkable that we should have this Order before us this evening and that we are being asked to replace a board so obviously impotent with ordinary banking interests in Rhodesia with a governor and trustee who is equally impotent.
We have here all the panoply and pomp of State


"The Reserve Bank of Rhodesia Order 1967


Made
23rd March 1967


Laid before Parliament
31st March 1967


Coming into Operation
1st April 1967


At the Court at Windsor Castle, the


23rd day of March 1967


Present,


The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council"—


all the pomp and panoply of State for complete and utter nonsense which makes us the laughing stock of the world. I hope that the Government will come to their senses before long and realise that this sort of policy can only damage the economy of this country and do harm to what they themselves want to achieve, which is a constitution which provides for an increase in African representation. I hope that the Government will change their mind about this Order before long.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: I wish to intervene for only a few moments because I do not see why the reputation


of this House should be damaged through it being turned into a racialist benefit match. For that reason it is right that a Member from this side should intervene to say that hon. Members on this side, with one conspicuous exception, support this Order. The day will come when the bank which has been established in this way will be able to carry out its functions in Rhodesia. The one thing which is clear about all this is that it makes it all the more important that the day will come when we are prepared to use force to enable it to carry out its functions in Rhodesia.
The objections to the Order seem to fall into two categories. Either it is said that the Order is futile because it is unenforceable, or that it is harsh because it is enforceable. I do not see how hon. Members opposite can maintain both arguments at the same time. It will be a great pity if the short-term effects of the Order, which give the illegal régime a benefit by sloughing off its liabilities and should obscure its long-term usefulness, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will give us some indication of how the Order is to become effective.
Much ridicule has been poured on the members of the board of directors. I think that the Prime Minister showed remarkable skill in assembling a board which included one ex-Chairman of the Conservative Party, whose views on legality attract a great deal more respect than do those of many Conservative hon. Members who are here tonight. Whether it is a board of several members or of one man, it is important that the Order should be effective, and I therefore want my hon. and learned Friend to tell us whether he is prepared to use sterner measures to deal with the robbers who took over these assets in Rhodesia and to see that these assets, which should be under the control of the bank, can be used in the discharge of its proper function.

Sir Knox Cunningham: When the hon. Gentleman said that with one notable exception his hon. Friends were behind him, did he also mean behind him in the use of force?

11.37 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): The issue which the House is now

called upon to decide lies within a very narrow compass. We are not asked to approve the policy of sanctions against the illegal racialist régime in Salisbury. That policy has already been approved by the great majority of the House. I know, of course, that hon. Gentlemen opposite have always been deeply divided on these Rhodesian issues, but that does not apply to my hon. Friends. What we are concerned with in this Order is whether we shall substitute one form of control of the Reserve Bank for another, whether we are to substitute a governor and trustee for a governor and a board of directors.
The right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) asked why it was necessary to make this change. It was not necessary to make the change, but in the circumstances it was desirable to do so. When it was set up under the original Order in 1965, the purpose of the board was to get in the assets of the Reserve Bank in different parts of the world. I was asked how successful that operation has been. I do not think that I can be expected to give figures, because, after all, we are here dealing with the affairs of a bank. I can answer only in general terms and say that we are satisfied that that has been a successful operation.
Why was it necessary to make the change? The assets having been got in, that is to say, the main purpose of the exercise having been fulfilled, it was no longer necessary to maintain a full board of directors.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I cannot follow why the figures should not be published. In the hon. and learned Gentleman's view, this must be enemy property and the figures should therefore be published. I do not see why they should not be and we ought to know what they are.

The Solicitor-General: This is not enemy property, it is the property of the people, all the people of Rhodesia. I will come a little later to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. For the time being the activities of this board must be very much circumscribed, the assets having been got in. Therefore, it was thought unnecessary that we should maintain a full board in existence. That is the reason why this change is being made.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to ask me when we were likely to give an


alternative to the governor and trustee. All that I can say is that various names are under consideration, and the actual name will be announced very soon. [An HON. MEMBER: "Kaldor.] He also asked me certain question about the proceedings in Germany and the cost of them to public funds.
I repeat the answer given, that the cost to the British taxpayer is negligible. It is perfectly true that there was a settlement, and I am not withholding anything from the House. There was a settlement, but that was arrived at by the bank, and it does not involve any charge to public funds in this country. I will give the right hon. Gentleman the figure. The figure involved was D.M. 3 million, amounting in our money to £275,000. That was the amount paid for the settlement, but, as I say, it does not fall on the taxpayer in this country.
I will come in a moment to the question about to whom the money in the bank belongs. The right hon. Gentleman went on to raise the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and other hon. Members. He complained that the responsibility had not been assumed for the interest on Rhodesian stocks. He suggested, I think, that we should in some way, assume it.
My answer to that is that this is not the responsibility of the British Government. We are not responsible for the default. The default follows directly from the rebellion in Rhodesia, and although the regime tried to make our Reserve Bank Order the pretext for its default, there is no connection between the two events. I repeat that the responsibility for the payment of interest on Southern Rhodesian stocks is not that of the Reserve Bank, nor is it that of Her Majesty's Government. It is the responsibility of the Government of Southern Rhodesia. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is not one."]
I agree that at this moment there is not one, but I am saying that responsibility does not rest with us. I am not trying in any way to evade the issue. I agree that we could meet this situation. We could pass a special Order in Council which would authorise the Secretary of State, in this regard, to assume the powers

of the Government of Southern Rhodesia, to procure the payment of interest.
He could then, if he thought fit, instruct the bank to make the interest payments. I am not suggesting for a moment that such an Order could not be made under the Act. I submit to the House that there are valid reasons for not making it.

Mr. Paget: Are we or are we not the Government of Southern Rhodesia? This is very important. If we are not the Government of Southern Rhodesia, who is?

The Solicitor-General: I am saying that we have not assumed all the functions of the government of Rhodesia. The government of Rhodesia is still vested in the Crown represented by the Governor. There is a government machine which cannot legally operate in the present circumstances. We are not the Government of Rhodesia. It would be wrong that we should assume the obligations of the Government of Rhodesia. I return to the point that I was making in answer to the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. The position is that there are various creditors of the Rhodesian Government. These are not the only creditors. If we were to authorise payment out of the interest on these stocks we would be discriminating in favour of one type of creditor against other creditors.
But there is a still more compelling reason than that. We announced in 1965 our intention to set up a London board of the Reserve Bank
… to preserve the assets of the Reserve Bank for the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
This is really the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). We have to preserve those assets until the time when legal constitutional government is restored. That is why we cannot take the measures which I admit would be within our powers to ensure the immediate payment of interest on Rhodesian stock—

Mr. Ronald Bell: If this is the object, can the Solicitor-General explain how the-payment of £275,000 of Reserve Bank money to a German firm is a way of preserving assets for the people of Rhodesia, since the consideration for that payment


was only that the firm should not print bank notes, and no benefit was derived from that by the people of Rhodesia?

The Solicitor-General: It was obviously desirable that the illegal régime should not be able to place this kind of order in foreign countries, and it was in the interests of the people of Rhodesia that these proceedings should be brought in Germany, and that they should have been compromised in the way they were.
I come now, if I may—

Mr. Wall: Can the Solicitor-General give an assurance to the British bond holders that once this business has been settled one way or the other they will have their back payments paid by the Reserve Bank? That is what is causing the anxiety.

The Solicitor-General: I appreciate the anxiety, but I think that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to give an answer to that question here and now, because it must be a matter for the bank. Obviously, I cannot assume responsibility here for all the affairs of the bank when legal constitutional government is restored, but I certainly expect that the claims of British bond holders will be met, just as the claims of other bond holders will be met when that stage is reached.
The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked whether the German case was the reason for this change. All I can say to him is that I do not think that he could have listened to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who made it perfectly clear that we had resolved upon this change before the German proceedings were initiated but that it was thought desirable to postpone the announcement until after their conclusion.
I pass over some of the observations that have been made because, as I said before, we are not concerned with the general policy of sanctions upon which so many hon. Members opposite wished to embark, but the hon. Member for, I think, Buckingham, used the phrase that we were laying our hands on other people's money. That is precisely what we are not doing. What we are doing is to preserve other people's money. We are preserving the money which be-

longs, as I said before, to all the people of Rhodesia. That was the purpose of this exercise in setting up the board in 1965 and of the changes we are making now. It is for that reason—

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) has not addressed the House this evening, and I should not like to be confused with him. And I did not say that. So there is a double error here.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry if I got the hon. and learned Member's constituency wrong, and I am sure he will accept my apology on that score. Secondly, I took down his words in inverted commas, and he did speak of our laying hands on other people's money.
I think that those are the substantive points that have been raised. We had the general pro-racial speeches we are accustomed to hear from certain hon. Members opposite, who can never make up their minds how far they will go in order to support the rebellion in Rhodesia. Those speeches are in no way germane to the issue we now have to decide, and I therefore suggest that the House should accept the Order.

Sir Knox Cunningham: If Her Majesty's Government are not the Government of Rhodesia, how is it that the hon. and learned Gentleman comes to the House tonight, as a member of that Government, and presents an Order which is going to be exercisable either in Southern Rhodesia or elsewhere? Can he explain the position of the Government and why they are not the Government of Southern Rhodesia?

The Solicitor-General: I thought I had made it clear that the government of Rhodesia is vested in the Crown as represented by the Governor. We have taken powers to make certain laws in respect of Rhodesia. We have never taken over in this country the government of Rhodesia. I hope that that distinction is now clear to the hon. and learned Member.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia Order 1967, dated 23rd March, 1967, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st March, be approved.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to move,
That the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) (Amendment) Order 1967, dated lath March 1967, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.
In view of the fact that the House is obviously of one mind so far as the Lobby is concerned on these Orders, I trust that I may deal with this one at not too great a length.
By an error, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you were not in the Chair, I began to move this Motion a little earlier this evening.
This is an essential step which Her Majesty's Government consider necessary to tighten up the enforcement machinery in existing sanctions. It is a reminder, I repeat, to all the people of Rhodesia, both black and white, that we intend to fulfil our obligations to the United Nations under the Security Council Resolution to the utmost. We intend to keep faith with those who have no liberty themselves in Rhodesia. I see that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) keeps laughing. If he would spare a thought for some of those dark-skinned people and the life they have to endure he would realise why this Motion is so necessary.
The main part of this Order is in Article 3 and it amends the Order of 1966 by inserting in it a new Article to be numbered Article 8A. This confers powers on the Secretary of State in relation to the transfer of the ownership of certain property overseas where it appears to him that such transfer might facilitate the contravention or evasion of the Order of 1966 or of the Petroleum Order of 1965.
The property in question is property in which persons who are subject to the Article have such an interest as would give them a say in whether the ownership of the property should be transferred. In most cases they would be in this position because they themselves owned the property, but the Article also covers cases where their ability to influence the disposal of the property arises in other ways—for example, because they are shareholders or because the property cannot be transferred without their concurrence and so forth.
Article 3 does not purport to operate directly on the property in question since this might be open to objection as involving an exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction. Instead, it operates on persons who have a specified interest in the property and who are themselves unquestionably subject to our jurisdiction. The Order is necessary because we were much exercised by a particular case, although we have several other possible cases in mind. The particular case relates to the oil pipeline from Beira to Mozambique to the oil refinery at Feruka in Rhodesia.
The background to the ownership of the pipeline and the right to operate it is complicated, but, broadly, the ownership is vested in the Mozambique company usually referred to as C.P.M.R. Approximately 40 per cent. of the shares are owned by Portuguese nationals and about 60 per cent. by a United Kingdom company, Lonrho Ltd. The latter has a number of directors on the board of C.P.M.R., the Portuguese company, but, because of the requirements of the local law, the Portuguese directors are in the majority.
Two relevant concessions relate to the pipeline. That relating to Portuguese territory was granted by the Mozambique Government to C.P.M.R. and that relating to Rhodesian territory was granted by the Rhodesian Government to Lonrho. Each concession provides that it cannot be assigned or disposed of without the consent of the Government concerned. Despite this obscure and complicated setup, the fact that Lonrho has a 60 per cent. majority shareholding in C.P.M.R. and also holds the Rhodesian concession has played a valuable part in the past in preventing oil being pumped up the pipeline to Rhodesia in contravention of our sanctions.
However, because of the Portuguese majority on the board of C.P.M.R., it has not been a complete safeguard. With the passage of the Security Council Resolution in April last year, the question has, in a sense, become less important, since the steps which we and others have taken to prevent the shipment of oil to Beira for transmission to Rhodesia have so far been completely effective. However, we cannot afford to relax our defences in this case and we would not like United Kingdom nationals


or companies to be seen to be co-operating in any step which might lead to our defences being breached or evaded.
The House will understand the seriousness with which the Government have had to view this situation, since Lonrho Ltd. recently approached the Government with the information that certain foreign companies were interested in buying both C.P.M.R. and Lonrho out of the pipeline by buying the undertaking and the related concessions. The Lonrho directors properly accepted that a good title to the concession in Rhodesia could not be transferred without the consent of the lawful Rhodesian Government, for which we alone could speak in present circumstances.
It is fair to say that Lonrho Ltd. was not surprised when we told it that, as things now stand, we would find it impossible to give the consent which it sought for the sale of the pipeline. Nevertheless, the company told us that its duty towards its Portuguese partners in C.P.M.R. might make it difficult for it to co-operate in any projected sale of the undertaking. It also pointed out that it could not guarantee that its failure to provide a good title to the concession would necessarily be an effective obstacle.
We also gathered that there were interests—South African, Portuguese and, possibly, Rhodesian—concerned in the likely purchase of this pipeline. It is only fair to point out that the directors of Lonrho Ltd. have since made it clear that they would not themselves willingly and freely co-operate in any transaction which ran counter to our policy in this matter. But circumstances might obviously have arisen in which, in the absence of any legal impediment, they would have had no real option in the matter. The important thing for this House was that a United Kingdom company should not participate, willingly or unwillingly, in the sale of a pipeline that might be used to break the sanctions on which we are embarked.
Broadly speaking, the effect of these directions is to prevent Lonrho from transferring to any other person its interest in the pipeline or any related concession, to prevent it from permitting C.P.M.R. from transferring its interest in the pipeline and the concessions, and to prevent it from relinquishing to any

other person its present shares in C.P.M.R. and such powers as it at present has to control the affairs of C.P.M.R.
As I have explained, the Lonrho case was not the only one that we had in mind, although it would not be right for me to go into the details of other cases which have occurred to us. But to give a hypothetical example, I might instance the sale of other kinds of transport facilities and undertakings which could be used either for the importation into Rhodesia of prohibited goods or for their exportation from Rhodesia.
When I think of the dark-skinned people in Rhodesia—

Mr. Wall: Who is being racialistic now?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman does annoy me sometimes. I was saying that when I realise that I am the spokesman, as is this House, for the dark-skinned people who are denied elementary human rights and who are subjected to police state conditions, to pass this Order is the very least the House can do.

12.4 a.m.

Mr. Wood: We are discussing an Order which is both grave and—although the Minister will not agree with this—a great deal less significant than even the last Order we were discussing.
The aim of this Instrument is to prevent the sale of property outside the United Kingdom which could be used to contravene the terms of the main Order of 1966, against which my right hon. and hon. Friends made clear our reasons for voting on 6th February last. As I understand the position, the Secretary of State can give to any person to whom the Instrument applies directions in writing to refrain from selling property that might facilitate a contravention of the 1966 Order.
One of the main difficulties of the Order seems to be that there is nothing in it to prevent the sale of property if the Secretary of State has not previously in writing forbidden it. Therefore, it is obvious that the effectiveness of the Order must depend on the amount of prior information which the Secretary of State is able to obtain about any likely sale in the future. Once a sale has gone through, there is nothing that he can do


about it. That is my understanding of the Order, and I do not think that I have misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman's speech.
In order to make the Order effective, will the Secretary of State not have to set up some system of industrial espionage, so that he may hear of any intended decisions before they are taken? Is that really what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do? If not, I wonder seriously it the Order is worth making.
It may be that, occasionally, the Secretary of State happens to hear by chance of some impending sale before it takes place, but it is more likely that the right hon. Gentleman would not have that information unless he took complicated and widespread steps to try to get it. If that is not what he intends to do, is the Order worth making? If he intends to set up this system of espionage, is it not wholly undesirable?
Any firm is permitted to do its best, in normal circumstances, to preserve the maximum degree of secrecy about its future intentions. That would not be offensive to anyone. Therefore, this Order leads to a direct and legal conflict of interest between business concerns and the Government. A business concern may be perfectly unaware that the action which it contemplates is of any concern or in any way offensive to the Government. If a sale goes through before the Government hear of it, all is well with the transaction. If the Government hear of the intentions of the firm, all may be off. It is an incentive to the firm to keep its intentions even more secret than it would otherwise.
I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman intends or would be able to weave this complicated web of espionage, without which this Order will add almost nothing to the main instrument of mandatory sanctions against which we voted on 6th February. One of the most important grounds on which we have, on two occasions, opposed the United Nations mandatory sanctions is that, in our conviction, their result inevitably will be the precise opposite to that intended by the Government. We believe that they make more difficult and more unlikely a settlement of the dispute between Britain and the Rhodesian régime, and, on two occasions, in December and February, we voted against what

we considered to be the mistake which the Government were making.
We do not believe that, by voting against this insignificant and ineffective extension of Government policy, we can make any clearer our opposition to the course which the Government chose to take four months ago. However, I wait with interest to hear an explanation of the steps which the Secretary of State intends to take, if he does intend to take them, to make this latest extension add anything to the policy of mandatory sanctions, which we shall continue to oppose.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can rest assured that he will have the full support of all members of his party for this Order.
This Parliament is the lawfully constituted authority in Rhodesia. It is the only authority with full constiutional rights to deal with the affairs of that country. Even if this were not so, even if we had no direct constitutional authority, if the British Government had no direct concern with the affairs of Rhodesia, the Government and the country would be bound, as a signatory State to the Charter of the United Nations, to put into effect an Order such as this. The Security Council of the United Nations, in complete and proper exercise of its authority under Chapter 7 of the Charter, has imposed selective mandatory sanctions against the illegal régime. The Order, perhaps in a small and not very significant way, but certainly in conformity with the decision of the Security Council, draws firmer our grip and tightens the sanctions which we are operating to bring down the illegal régime.
I remind the House that, in doing this, we are acting in concert with at least 90 other nations and with every major industrial power. Some hon. Members opposite are whistling to keep up their courage. They know that the Rhodesian tobacco crop is unsold. They know that the sanctions are becoming more effective. They know that the white population is becoming more and more divided and uncertain and that other groupings are developing. I cannot pursue that theme without becoming out of order, but it is not unrelated to this Measure which is


before us and which will be approved by the House.
It is unfortunately true that in the history of mankind treason and rebellion by lawless rogues and thieves have done grave damage to honest men. This, alas, we cannot from time to time avoid. We know also that such lawless rogues and thieves do from time to time find apologists and accomplices in high places. We know that they may for a time laugh at authority and make unlawful profit. We know that eventually rebellion and treason will be put down and constitutional law restored.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Once again I fear that the Minister of State stated by leaning on a morass of weakness when he seemed to think that the best point he had to make in support of the Order was that it was being promulgated in execution of the Security Council Resolution. Since that Resolution, as I thought we had all agreed, was wholly illegal and invalid—even the Attorney-General was able to put up only a somewhat halfhearted defence of it—surely the worst thing that can be said is that this, which is being done in the interests of legality, as it is said, is done in pursuance of the greatest illegality that has struck the world in this century, namely, the breach by the Security Council of the United Nations of the plain meaning of its own Charter.
The powers conferred by the Order go far too wide. This is not delegated legislation, because it is not legislation in any true sense of the word. The Government have gone so far in their anti-Rhodesian frenzy that they have finally abandoned any attempt at defining prohibited actions and given an unfettered power to a Minister of the Crown. I invite hon. Members, some of whom have appeared to cheer the Order, to look at it. The relevant paragraph is contained not, as the Minister of State erroneously said, in Article 3, but in Article 2. The hon. Gentleman is having a difficult time tonight. Article 2 empowers the Secretary of State to give directions.
If it appears to the Secretary of State that the transfer of the ownership of any property to which this Article applies may facilitate the contravention or evasion of this Order…

That is the first leg of it. Thus,
If it appears to the Secretary of State"—
it does not have to be anything more than that—
that the transfer of the ownership of any property to which this Article applies"—
not necessarily the transfer of any property to Rhodesia or anything like that, but any transfer of, in effect, any property owned by a British subject—
may facilitate"—
not "constitute"—a
contravention or evasion"—
not just a contravention, but an evasion. In that context, what can "evasion" mean but something which is not a contravention, something which is wholly legal, not forbidden?
Therefore, any transfer by a British subject of any property which may facilitate, not even a contravention, but an evasion, may be the subject matter of directions in writing requiring the person to whom the direction is sent
to take or … to refrain from taking such action in relation to that property as the directions may specify".
There again, there is absolutely no limit or boundary. Any direction which the Secretary of State sees fit to give may be given,
and any person to whom directions are given under this Article shall comply with them. Any directions … may be either general or special … and may be revoked or varied by subsequent such directions.
I have seen a good many Statutory Instruments in my time. I have given some of my time in the House of Commons to the scrutiny of them in the Select Committee. This Instrument offends against every canon of law-making in this country. It is vague, it is discretionary, it is wide-ranging.
Article 3 presumes guilt. It states:
In any proceedings against any person for a contravention … of this Order, if it is proved that, notwithstanding any directions given to him under that Article in relation to any property, the ownership of that property or of any interest in or right over that property has been transferred"—
not by him necessarily—
the burden of proving that he complied with those directions shall lie upon him.
Therefore, I say, it presumes guilt. It is oppressive in its operation and spiteful in its motivation. It exhausts, except only


in savagery of punishment, the whole armoury of tyranny.
How blunted our susceptibilities have become about rules and orders is shown by the way in which this Order is being passed tonight. There are few present in the Chamber. There is to be no Division. We are getting so used to Instruments which allow the Executive to do anything that even so extreme an example as this Order raises no ripple of interest.
However, there is one point of significance in the Order which may receive a tiny fraction of the notice which it deserves. This is the latest in a series of cannibalistic, self-destroying Orders in which the British people are tearing at their own vitals. For those whom it is meant to hurt are as much a part of the British people as we who will tonight, after this debate, walk home through the streets of London. It must be some tragic cancerous death-wish which mesmerises us as we aim the random malevolence of this Order at the loyal and sturdy British people in Rhodesia, for no better cause than the exultant smirks on the faces of the sort of people who hang about the corridors of international organisations.
I gather that there will be no Division, but I wanted to take this opportunity to dissociate myself in the most explicit and formal manner possible from the shameful action which Her Majesty's Government are taking. I hope that even the Minister of State, who sometimes disagrees with what I say, just as I sometimes disagree with what he says, will feel impelled to begin to diverge from the ruinous folly of the Prime Minister in this whole Rhodesia business. I hope that he will regard this Order, in the extremity of its vagueness, its viciousness, its spiteful attack upon our own people, our families and friends in Rhodesia, as marking a point beyond which he will not go with his right hon. Friend in oppression, injustice and tyranny.

12.22 a.m.

Mr. Paget: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) makes rather heavy weather of an Order which seems to me to do practically nothing.

Mr. William Molloy: What we have just listened to was just a "phoney" act for publicity purposes. There was nothing sincere in it at all.

Mr. Paget: I think that that might apply to quite a lot that we hear on this issue, and I do not wish to go into that too much.

Mr. Ronald Bell: rose—

Mr. Paget: No—I am sorry. The hon. and learned Gentleman put what I regard as a rather exaggerated view of the Order. As I understand it, the purpose of the Order is to try to prevent the sale of a pipeline partly in Mozambique and partly in Rhodesia. So far as it is in Mozambique, it is in the control of a company the majority of whose board are Portuguese. The majority of that board, whether the Government give a direction to the minority or not, can still sell an asset of the company, that is to say, the pipeline. No direction given here can affect the decision taken in Mozambique.
So far as the pipeline is in Rhodesia, although we may for some purposes claim to be the Government of Rhodesia and for other purposes say that we are not, as a matter of practice our writ does not run there. If the illegal but none the less effective Government of Rhodesia wish the ownership of the Rhodesian part of the pipeline to be transferred to themselves or to anyone else, that is the effective decision. Therefore, the Order will be entirely ineffective in the particular case to which it is directed.
I now turn to the wider questions. The right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) pointed out that it applies only where the Government have had notice of what is intended and made a prohibition order before the sale in question is carried out. I think that industrial espionage is also very heavy weather here. The only transactions which the Government will hear about are those about which the directors tell them because they want an excuse for not doing what they do not want to do anyway. If they want to do it, they will not go to the Government; if they do not want to do it, they will provide themselves with an excuse to their shareholders. That is all that it adds up to, and such a case must be pretty rare.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. Wall: When the history of the House comes to be written these two Orders will seem to have been some of


the most extraordinary ever debated. The only parallel is, I think, in "Alice in Wonderland".
The Minister of State has told us that the basis of the Order is to stop the sale of the Lonrho pipeline. The aim of the Order is therefore to make effective the wishes of the minority of directors in non-British company operating in a territory not under British control.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, has the direction on this pipeline been written by the Secretary of State?

Mr. George Thomas: Yes. The order was given on 15th March. It was brought before the House at the first possible date, and the Standing Orders were complied with.

Mr. Wall: I am sure that the Standing Orders were complied with, but the effect is that it is, in essence, retrospective legislation.
The important question is how we intend to enforce the Order. The Minister has already admitted that the British directors are in a minority. They are not in control of the company and therefore the majority—not of shareholders, but of directors—can decide to sell the pipeline if they want to. It lies in Mozambique and Rhodesia, and there is nothing the British Government can do to stop the sale. I recognise that the Order places on the British directors responsibility to do their best to stop the sale, but the Minister must recognise that they cannot stop this sale if the majority of the directors wish to go ahead.
I believe that the British Government have been paying Lonrho compensation because the pipeline has been out of action due to the blockade of Beira by the British Navy, and that it amounted to about £250,000. Is it still being paid?

Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is not quite correct. We have not paid any compensation. We have given help for the maintenance and repair of the pipeline and we consider that enough has been given for that.

Mr. Wall: I take it that the pipeline is now fully maintained and repaired, at a time when it may well be disposed of to people who are officially our enemies.

We are taking action in this Order to stop the sale of the pipeline and have been blockading the port of Beira for a year to stop oil passing through the pipe. I think that the Minister will know that the Portuguese Government have put in a claim to the United Nations for £10 million damages.
Why are we the only country to take action? Why is it only the British Navy which is maintaining the blockade? Why not other members of the United Nations? We have been told by hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite that this is a United Nations crusade. Why are not other members of the United Nations assisting in this task of preventing oil going to Beira?
Assuming that this Order works, assuming that the pipeline is not sold, assuming that the blockade of Beira continues to be successful, is it worth all this trouble and expense? I ask that, because it is not the fact that oil is coming into Rhodesia from almost every other direction? It is not going through Beira, but it is coming by land through Bietbridge, through Botswana, and in other ways.
We know that the needs of Rhodesia are only 4 per cent. of the annual needs of oil fuel of South Africa. We know that we cannot stop this leak, short of war, which is what some hon. Gentlemen opposite want. Presumably that is the only way to stop it?
What about the report, not yet verified it is true, that oil has been found in the Low Velt of Rhodesia? If oil has been struck, it will make the Government look more foolish than they do at the moment.

12.31 a.m.

Sir Knox Cunningham: We were told when we passed the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) Order. 1966, that all the leaks had been stopped. Now we have another Order, and we are told that this will apply not only in the case of the pipeline, but to other cases which the Minister of State has in mind.
I do not want to go into the Order in detail because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has dealt with that. But what is to happen is that the Secretary of State will give directions in


writing, either general or special directions. These can be revoked or varied. There can be further subsequent directions, and if they are not complied with by the individual concerned he will be liable to a fine of £500 or two years' imprisonment, or both, and what is more he will have to prove his innocence.
That is what we are being asked to approve this evening. That is what the Government have brought before the House. The House ought to realise that this is a most extraordinary Order. It will give the widest possible powers to a Minister to act, to revoke, and create directions. It will give the Minister power to create offences, and under this Order a person will have to prove his innocence.
I understand that this Order will have retrospective effect, because we were told by the Minister of State that a direction was given on 15th March, and it is now the 18th April, when we are being asked to approve this Order. It is a most sweeping and extraordinary Order for any Government to bring before the House.

12.34 a.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: It is occasionally illuminating and instructive to reflect on the impotence of legislatures. This impotence is often in inverse proportion to their moral indignation on any issue. The House of Commons, not normally unwise, not normally impotent, seems, on the issue of this Order, masochistically determined to demonstrate its absolute impotence, to advertise it, one might say to entrench it, in the log book of history.
This flows not from the rightness or the wrongness of this Order—and there are obviously many views on this—or from the moral attitudes which underlie it, or, indeed, which are presumed, sometimes correctly and sometimes wrongly, to underlie the opposition to it.
It flows rather from those basic factors which have always generated impetus. It flows from the realities of economic and political power which hon. Members opposite seem strangely determined not to recognise. We are told that it is necessary to impede the sale of the pipeline. It may achieve this limited and futile end, but it will not impede the flow of oil and that, by general consent, is what matters. Nor would any Order,

because of the realities of power, impede anything fundamental to the survival of the Rhodesian régime, whatever our views may be on the merits of that régime.
This is the libretto of a farce without music, for there is no music in the attempted destruction of a people, however misguided we may think those people to be.

Mr. Stanley Orme: A wind instrument.

Mr. Lloyd: It is astonishing to think that the fate of a nation—for that is what we are discussing—which, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has rightly pointed out, consists of two racial groups, should be the subject of mirth. It is a matter for shame.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: And so is the hon. Member's speech.

Mr. Lloyd: This is a libretto marking a schizophrenic permanence in the separation of the House of Commons from the powers it can expect to exercise in subjects of this kind.

12.37 a.m.

Mr. David Steel: An earlier speaker from the Conservative benches deplored the fact that there were so few Members here at this hour to listen to the debate on this important Order. I am surprised that so many hon. Members bother to come time after time to listen to the same speeches from the same irresponsible minority of the Conservative Party who are the self-appointed apologists for the rebel régime in Rhodesia.
With great respect to the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), who usually approaches these things with greater moderation and care than his colleagues, I do not agree that this Order is less significant than that which we debated earlier. I think that it is far more significant.
Even if it did not go beyond the possible sale of the Lonrho pipeline, that would be justification enough for the Order. It is, nevertheless, true that the pipeline could be taken over, but only by a process of confiscation. Certainly, it could not be taken over legally. Moreover, it might well be that this Order


will be required to be brought into operation in other cases.
To take a hypothetical example, there is the possible sale of ships to those international gangsters who exist and are only too anxious to exploit this situation, as they would exploit any for the sake of profit. If it came to a British company selling a ship to such an organisation for the purpose of avoiding sanctions, it might be that one case would slip through the net of prior notification which the Government require, but then a general direction would be issued under this Order so that no repetition would take place by the same company.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how an illegal régime in Rhodesia can possibly take over a pipeline in Mozambique?

Mr. Steel: I was not referring to the section of the pipeline which goes through Mozambique.

Mr. Paget: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of a general direction about the selling of ships, what would that general direction be? Would it be not to sell ships, in which case the Order is a good deal wider than anybody, even its strongest supporters, thought it to be? Would it be not to sell ships to particular buyers, in which case if it was wanted to sell ships, a new company would be able to sell them?

Mr. Steel: I dare say that every effort will be made to avoid this Order, as every effort has been made to avoid every other Order and every step taken by the Government to implement sanctions. That does not seem to be a good reason for not at least attempting to make sanctions effective. This all along has been the argument of those who at heart want the Smith régime to get away with it and who want to sit by and do nothing.
If the Government deserve criticism it is because they have required prodding and stiffening in their policy, because, if anything, they have done everything too little and too late. The last people to whom they should listen in discussions of Orders of this kind are those who would do even less even later.

12.42 a.m.

Mr. William Molloy: The speech of the hon. Member for Rox-

burgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) was so refreshing that I find myself bound to give him some support. All the arguments which we have had from hon. Members opposite tonight—I do not think that I can include right hon. Gentlemen opposite—have seemed to be intended to be based on what was constitutionally right and proper. The purpose of the Order is to help to break down a régime which is hostile to the Crown and the constitution of this country. Yet hon. Members opposite have been putting forward arguments which would destroy the constitution of this nation, and they have done so in support of a rebel régime. That must mean that they are in direct opposition to the Crown and constitution of this country.
I know that such a purpose will bring smiles to the faces of some hon. Members opposite, but the official Tory Opposition have to face the fact that the Order supports international law, the fact that we are discussing the British constitution. One would have thought that senior members of the Opposition would have been present tonight to deplore the attitude of some hon. Members opposite. I believe that their absence shows that they are ashamed of their hon. Friends.
I hope that tonight the House will decide to support not only the traditions and constitution of this country, but, once again, will support the only thing which can save mankind, which is some form of international law such as the United Nations of which so many in the Tory Party seemed to have a built-in hatred. If there is any form of masochism on which hon. Members should concentrate, it is that form of masochism, because they could destroy not only themselves but humanity. The Order could be as important as that in demonstrating what issues are involved, because next time there might be an issue bigger than that of Rhodesia.

Mr. Speaker: It will not be discussed on this Order.

Mr. Molloy: I was only giving you fair warning, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the House will decide to support the constitution of this country and the overwhelming majority decision of the rest of the world and accept the Order.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) complained about the speeches from this side of the House. He seemed to feel that they were inappropriate to the occasion. May I say, in all sincerity, that there are some of us on this side who are becoming a little disgusted about the way in which some hon. Members are parading their consciences before an international audience, knowing well that all their paper aeroplanes and cardboard soldiers will have as much effect on the situation in Rhodesia as would an Order dealing with the parking problem on the moon.
We all know that we are indulging in nonsense in passing this and other Orders. It is quite clear that the hon. Gentleman and others obtain a great deal of satisfaction in passing them, when they know that they will be meaningless. It is quite clear that we now have no practical control over the situation in Rhodesia. This is what we should be turning our minds to. This Order, and the other that we have debated tonight, will have no practical effect. In these circumstances, it is just a piece of nonsense to pass them at all.
The obvious reason is to absolve the splendid conscience which the Government demonstrate from time to time; they must be seen to be doing this before an international audience. To do so, they bring forward little pieces of paper, to try to justify their position. This little Order has produced a number of interesting speeches and I think that many would have been interested in the splendid sentiments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). He said that ha wanted to dissociate himself in the most explicit manner from this Order. I agree with him.
I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will turn their minds to the possibility that the Conservative party should dissociate itself in the most explicit manner from this Order.

Mr. James Tinn: Can the hon. Gentleman resolve an apparent contradiction? He agrees with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bruckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), so he says. Can he tell us how he reconciles what his hon. and learned

Friend said, that this Measure is harsh and oppressive, with his own view that it is meaningless?

Mr. Taylor: I will deal effectively with that point before I sit down, and if the hon. Gentlemen has any cause for dissatisfaction, I hope that he will say so.
Some time ago we had the opportunity, on the Southern Rhodesia Act, to express our position clearly. I hope that the time will come when all these nonsensical Orders will be treated in this way—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to this Order.

Mr. Taylor: This would be an excellent opportunity for us to deal generally with them. There is no question that if it had been thought that these powers would be practically applied, it would be found that hon. Members on both sides of the House would object to a gross intereference with democracy.
The powers, if they were applied, could bite extremely harshly. This Order will probably be placed in the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) Order, 1966, as Article 8a, between Article 8, which legalises international piracy, and Article 9, which justifies the production of documents in any circumstances, in a very unusual way.
I would suggest that if hon. Members were to look at these powers carefully, it would appear that this Government, or what we regard as the Government of Rhodesia, accepts the responsibility of seizing assets, but does not accept responsbility for paying debts. If we accept this situation, we should look at the particular provisions of the powers. We have something here which says that any transfer of assets can be interfered with by a direction which may be amended, may be changed, may be special or may be general. It is also made quite clear in Article 3 of the Order that the obligation is on the accused person to prove his innocence, and that certainly will not be very easy to do.
The argument advanced by the Minister of State for accepting the Order was based on the case of the pipeline. He must know that if ever there was a possibility of the pipeline being used, and the oil came to the end of the pipeline, it would be rather easy for the Government of the country concerned simply to


nationalise the pipeline. Nationalisation is not something that I would normally support, but it is something which the Government well know can be readily done. The compensation could be on the generous side of fair, and it would be very difficult in those circumstances for the Government to object to it.
We have the other argument, about the supply of oil. I feel that the Government are making themselves look a little silly over this, because for several months they supplied the airlift for oil. We had great difficulty in obtaining the cost of that operation but eventually found that it cost the Government more than £1 per gallon to transport the oil. This transportation has now been stopped. I therefore suggest that this Order will have little or no practical effect, and that it is about time we ended this nonsense.
The serious point advanced by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles related to a ship. He said that the Order could be applied very effectively to a hypothetical situation involving a ship, and we know that it could be applied extremely effectively in that way if the Government intended it. But this is where we come to the real barrier between what has been said and what will, in fact, happen.
We know that Rhodesia does not have many ports open to her at this time, or at any time, and that any goods coming in would come from South Africa. But for the Government to use this Order, as they obviously could, to interfere with ships going to or from South Africa would bring them directly into conflict with South Africa and, therefore, there might be some possibility of bringing the Order to nil effect. Despite the splendid sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles and by members of the Government here or on public platforms, the Government have not the slightest intention of coming into any form of conflict with South Africa. This Order, therefore, is the greatest hypocrisy that ever was. Even if they are prepared to voice these sentiments, it is quite clear that they will do nothing about it.
In those circumstances, how can we regard the Order as anything but nonsense and hypocrisy? The Government

will be doing themselves a service if they stop bringing forward any more of these Orders but, if they do bring more forward, I hope that my hon. Friends will, in the splendid words used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South, show opposition in the most obvious and explicit way by voting against them.

12.54 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) doubted whether these powers would ever, in practice, be applied. The short answer to him is that they have already been applied. They were applied on the same day on which the Order was made and came into force. It may very well be that there will be other cases in which they will be applied.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) said, quite rightly, that the effectiveness of this Order must depend upon prior information. I agree. Here, again, I can only answer him in general terms, because I cannot indicate the nature or sources of information. But we have a considerable volume of information about the possibility of transactions of this kind, and we are satisfied that our information is accurate. That is why we attach considerable importance to this Order.
The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) made considerable play with the words of the Order. He talked about contravention or evasion, but I think that the meaning is perfectly clear to the House. If a transfer such as is here contemplated is likely to defeat the purpose of the main Order, there is power to prevent it. That is a power which we say the Government should have.
The hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) both referred to Article 3, which deals with the onus of proof, and suggested that it was singularly oppressive. Of course, I agree that it is only in certain exceptional cases in the criminal law that the onus shifts, but there are such cases well known to the law. When dealing, for example, with the possession of explosives or dangerous weapons, the onus of showing lawful possession shifts to the defence. It is for the defence to discharge it. The defence does not, however, carry such a


heavy onus as the prosecution. It only has to show a balance of probability.
If there were a charge of ignoring a direction, and Article 3 came into force, all that the director or the person concerned would need to do would be to show that he had done his utmost to comply with the direction that had been given. That is a perfectly reasonable burden to put upon him in the circumstances that prevail. Therefore, there is nothing particularly exceptional or oppressive about the Article.
But then the hon. and learned Member for Bucks, South went on to use a number of other phrases. He said that this comprised the whole apparatus of tyranny. He said that this was the latest of a series of cannibalistic self-destroying Orders in which the British people were tearing at their own vitals. He went on to announce, however, that neither he nor his hon. Friends intended to vote against the Order. I wonder how outrageous the measure would be that would provoke hon. Members opposite to go into the Lobby.
We do not have—and I say this with great respect to right hon. Members opposite—any of the leaders of the Conservative Party coming to take part in this debate. Perhaps I might quote the phrase used by David Lloyd George, in a similar case, "This is the charge of the Light Brigade".
I come now to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). Of course, the person to whom a direction is given may not be able to bring about the desired result. But he must do everything in his power to influence his fellow directors, even if the directors belong to another country, to prevent the transfer in question.
The hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South said that this was retrospective legislation. He is wrong. If he will look at the Article, and the way in which these Orders come into effect,

he will see that the Order comes into operation as soon as it is made. It is true that it does not need to come for approval of the House until some time later, but there is no question here of making an Order or giving a direction until the Order is made or until it becomes effective, so there is no possible question of any retrospective legislation.
I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) was very much on the point. There might well be a case in which the sale of a ship was contemplated and it is important that we should have power to prevent it. Although we are not discussing the general issue of sanctions, but only the particular points which arises on this Order, I would say how much I agreed with the hon. Member and with my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley).
What we are concerned to do here, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North said, is to support international order. In the original Order, of which this is an Amendment, we gave effect to our obligations to the United Nations as a result of the Security Council Resolution. We on this side shall go on giving effect to our international obligations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) (Amendment) Order 1967, dated 15th March 1967, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacBride.]

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past One o'clock.